Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

Speaking of the screams evidence and why I find it so convincing-- I think there is little difficulty in recognizing a woman's voice screaming in mortal fear for her life. It is high and shrill and pitched to an unmistakable degree. It would be extremely rare that a man would be capable of replicating those notes especially without the SAME INTENSE AND IMMEDIATE FEAR EXPERIENCED WHILE STARING DEATH IN THE FACE-- this was not Oscar's situation that night. He never faced down an intruder about to kill him.

His cries of anguish after he realized he had shot Reeva could easily sound like a woman. Crying or wailing and sobbing is a very different kind of vocalization-- it comes more from the back of your throat and up from your gut, not from high in your lungs like a woman screaming bloody murder. Cries of anguish feel like they lock up your vocal chords which distorts the sound making it harder to determine gender.

As I interpret the testimony, a woman's "blood-curdling" screams were heard before the final shots. The "crying" sounds were reported afterwards and could easily have been Oscar. It is not ambiguous for me at all.

Do you have anything to back up any of your assertions though? Expertise or personal experience? Otherwise on what basis do you make these assertions?

BIB but that's the crying the defense says everyone heard. How do you know that crying or wailing is so utterly different from screaming that they couldn't be mistaken?? I would have thought that sobbing is different but crying out or wailing isn't really. And besides we have 4 witnesses who heard female screaming and at the same time one witness who heard a baby/woman crying which shows that the same noise that night was heard both as screaming and crying - so there's no good reason to say that screaming and crying can't be mistaken. Can't you see that??

There were two sets of shots heard by the Stipps and the female screaming was in between them. So the screams were either after the shots or before the shots depending on which are the real shots. The defense say it's the first so both crying and screaming are after the shots. The state say the second are the real shots - as they had to to make the screaming Reeva's - but the timeline and the state's case put those shots too late - at 3.17 as one of the close neighbours reports male crying at 3.16.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Do you have anything to back up any of your assertions though? Expertise or personal experience? Otherwise on what basis do you make these assertions?

BIB but that's the crying the defense says everyone heard. How do you know that crying or wailing is so utterly different from screaming that they couldn't be mistaken?? I would have thought that sobbing is different but crying out or wailing isn't really. And besides we have 4 witnesses who heard female screaming and at the same time one witness who heard a baby/woman crying which shows that the same noise that night was heard both as screaming and crying - so there's no good reason to say that screaming and crying can't be mistaken. Can't you see that??

There were two sets of shots heard by the Stipps and the female screaming was in between them. So the screams were either after the shots or before the shots depending on which are the real shots. The defense say it's the first so both crying and screaming are after the shots. The state say the second are the real shots - as they had to to make the screaming Reeva's - but the timeline and the state's case put those shots too late - at 3.17 as one of the close neighbours reports male crying at 3.16.

Been though all this before. The only thing I am not clear on is the Stipp's housekeeper's testimony about hearing a baby crying or what else she heard or even when. I have not seen any kind of translation of her statement. Let me know if you have a link.

I base my opinions on the second sounds being the actual gun shots. As I have said many times before, I cannot accept Roux's time of 3:17 for the final shots. I think he has contrived this time and managed to leave it undisputed. I believe the final shots were around 3:15 so have no problem with a male crying at 3:16.

Attending an all girls boarding school gave me ample opportunity to hear girls screaming in all kinds of situations. I have personally experienced the sounds of crying and wailing in anguish and grief. I do not care to reveal the details.

It may be a language difference in translation, but most people know the meaning of and the sounds associated with the word "scream" versus what "crying" sounds like and what brings it on.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Can you define unsubstantiated? The times the defense used must have been from the state's evidence. They couldn't have been from anywhere else. And Nel just sat there while Roux used this evidence and he also didn't try to argue it was wrong during the heads of argument. Just because we don't know exactly where something is from doesn't mean that Roux, Nel and the court don't and I just find it very hard to believe any of this can ben regarded as 'made up'.

Some posters have argued that the defense timeline may be wrong but that's irrelevant. It must be wrong for the state to succeed.

I will respond in more detail later, have to leave right now. But I find Mr. Fossil's review of Roux interviewing Charl Johnson helpful to understand how some of these call times were entered into evidence by the defense.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...t=file,docx&app=Word&authkey=!AIacMz8aMmZS3ow

 

[GR_Turner]

I will respond in more detail later, have to leave right now. But I find Mr. Fossil's review of Roux interviewing Charl Johnson helpful to understand how some of these call times were entered into evidence by the defense.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...t=file,docx&app=Word&authkey=!AIacMz8aMmZS3ow

I know where Johnson's time comes from but that doesn't help the state. They needed to show the time was wrong and didn't. The evidence was entered by the state so how this can be seen as Roux being devious I don't know.

 

[GR_Turner]

Been though all this before. The only thing I am not clear on is the Stipp's housekeeper's testimony about hearing a baby crying or what else she heard or even when. I have not seen any kind of translation of her statement. Let me know if you have a link.

I base my opinions on the second sounds being the actual gun shots. As I have said many times before, I cannot accept Roux's time of 3:17 for the final shots. I think he has contrived this time and managed to leave it undisputed. I believe the final shots were around 3:15 so have no problem with a male crying at 3:16.

Attending an all girls boarding school gave me ample opportunity to hear girls screaming in all kinds of situations. I have personally experienced the sounds of crying and wailing in anguish and grief. I do not care to reveal the details.

It may be a language difference in translation, but most people know the meaning of and the sounds associated with the word "scream" versus what "crying" sounds like and what brings it on.

Yes we have been over this. The housekeeper evidence was entered into evidence via Mrs Stipp's evidence. A part of her statement is in the defense heads. Your second shots at 3.15 is contradicted by both the 3.17 Stipp call and 3.16 Johnson call both of which are from the state's evidence and the accuracy of neither of which was queried by the state.

Ok but you do realise that the allegation is that male cries of distress were mistaken for the distressed cries of a woman? So we're not saying that there were actually any female screams at all and that they were mistaken for something else.

I don't see your argument. The defense one is simple. For whatever reason, 4 people heard screaming while one heard crying (and in her affidavit she first mistook it for a baby). If your argument is that screaming and crying can't be mistaken for one another then you are arguing against the fact that this clearly happened that night.

 

[aftermath]

After he killed her, he had two options: admit to murder, or invent the intruder story. Not hard to imagine which one he'd choose. The fact he phoned a friend (rather than medical help) indicates his thoughts were not with Reeva at that time. Why did he want help "lifting" her anyway? Why not just call the emergency services immediately?

How long did the phone call to Stander last though? A matter of seconds rather than minutes, followed by a call to the emergency services. i don't think it can be too surprising that people don't always act exactly as might be expected in such a situation. I also don't think it too surprising if (rightly or wrongly), -on seeing the nature of her injuries- he felt he needed to rush her to a hospital rather than wait for an ambulance.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB - hell of an assumption! She was under oath and clearly stated what she was thinking at the time of the commotion. "I was thinking... where is the lady". Dismissing what she said because it implies she thought there was some kind of domestic dispute going on is once again trying to throw anything out that puts OP in a negative light.

BIB 2 - No, it is not a good example at all because you've had to throw out her evidence to make this point.

I was replying to an initial question as to why she might have said something that she could not have possibly known at the time. She made assumptions or she allowed herself to be influenced by what she learned later or whatever. I don't really care if her evidence is ignored completely it doesn't make any difference anyway unless you're into wild speculation which I'm not.

The point is that a famous person killed someone and the ensuing publicity tainted everyone's evidence to one degree or another. Many came to the stand with their head crammed with information that your average witness would not have. Information that lead them to testify to some mind boggling claims like they knew, at the time, that something could not possibly have happened even though they were sound asleep. Does that sound like untainted testimony or does it sound like the evidence of someone who was being presented with a version that just didn't fit with their own? A version they learned from the TV and radio and newspapers.

 

[soozieqtips]

How long did the phone call to Stander last though? A matter of seconds rather than minutes, followed by a call to the emergency services. i don't think it can be too surprising that people don't always act exactly as might be expected in such a situation. I also don't think it too surprising if (rightly or wrongly), -on seeing the nature of her injuries- he felt he needed to rush her to a hospital rather than wait for an ambulance.

BIB - Are you talking about the call to Netcare where OP said he was told to bring Reeva to hospital? He clearly did not explain he'd shot her in the head, and (no surprises here) he can't even remember what he said to Netcare. But how could he predict what he thought they were going to say? Why did he ask for help lifting Reeva before he'd called Netcare? Why was he thinking of moving Reeva when he hadn't yet got instructions from Netcare? More than likely he downplayed her injuries because he didn't want an ambulance showing up before he'd got the "intruder" story straight in his head.

Remember also that he lied when he said he'd asked Stander to call for an ambulance (which he had not). Why lie about that unless he thought Stander might go along with the lie? Once more - no one, I repeat no one... called for an ambulance until Dr Stipp made it happen. OP lied again (surprise) when he said Stander told him to put Reeva down (yes, he lifted her without help!) as an ambulance was on its way. It wasn't on its way as it hadn't been called, as OP well knew. Do you have any excuses for those lies? Aside from him being "distraught"?

 

[cottonweaver]

I was replying to an initial question as to why she might have said something that she could not have possibly known at the time. She made assumptions or she allowed herself to be influenced by what she learned later or whatever. I don't really care if her evidence is ignored completely it doesn't make any difference anyway unless you're into wild speculation which I'm not.

The point is that a famous person killed someone and the ensuing publicity tainted everyone's evidence to one degree or another. Many came to the stand with their head crammed with information that your average witness would not have. Information that lead them to testify to some mind boggling claims like they knew, at the time, that something could not possibly have happened even though they were sound asleep. Does that sound like untainted testimony or does it sound like the evidence of someone who was being presented with a version that just didn't fit with their own? A version they learned from the TV and radio and newspapers.

Really, You're not into wild speculation? Read BIB again

Just cause Oldwadge tried to get Mrs Stipp to agree with your line on media tainting and Roux tried it with the rest of the difficult witnesses in cross x.....but that's what they are paid to do, to undermine.
As a WS poster, one doesn't have to fall hook line and sinker in with Def. strategies.

 

[aftermath]

BIB - Are you talking about the call to Netcare where OP said he was told to bring Reeva to hospital? He clearly did not explain he'd shot her in the head, and (no surprises here) he can't even remember what he said to Netcare. But how could he predict what he thought they were going to say? Why did he ask for help lifting Reeva before he'd called Netcare? Why was he thinking of moving Reeva when he hadn't yet got instructions from Netcare? More than likely he downplayed her injuries because he didn't want an ambulance showing up before he'd got the "intruder" story straight in his head.

Remember also that he lied when he said he'd asked Stander to call for an ambulance (which he had not). Why lie about that unless he thought Stander might go along with the lie? Once more - no one, I repeat no one... called for an ambulance until Dr Stipp made it happen. OP lied again (surprise) when he said Stander told him to put Reeva down (yes, he lifted her without help!) as an ambulance was on its way. It wasn't on its way as it hadn't been called, as OP well knew. Do you have any excuses for those lies? Aside from him being "distraught"?

If he was lying about the content of the netcare call the state would have called those people from Netcare to testify. Nothing is clear about what he did or didn't say. Given the extent of her injuries it was probably pretty clear that she needed immediate emergency attention so it can't be too surprising that he thought of rushing her there himself. If he struggled to get her out of the toilet he might have thought he would need help carrying her to the car to be as fast as possible. There is nothing to suggest that it was likely he downplayed her injuries.

The 'lies ' you refer to are not necessarily lies.

 

[Trotterly]

Well, then society has to be prepared for a lot of unsatisfactory cases where murderers get off with light sentences for CH or walk free just by claiming they held the mistaken belief their life had been threatened when they shot and killed someone. I think there is a problem with the opposing burden of proofs, or at least the wording and interpretation of the standard of "reasonably possibly true." Any halfway decent defense attorney can present a defendant's case so that it has to be considered "reasonably possibly true."

After listening to so many months of testimony and discussion, this phrase "reasonably, possibly true" has become a mantra for anyone supporting the defense, and even though this may be established law in S.A. something does not feel quite right with such a reductive standard. So bear with me here, as I try to think through why this phrase continues to bother me so much (in other words please don't tear me to shreds for thinking out loud a bit-- even if it is another lengthy post!)

I understand the burden of proof is correctly placed on the Prosecution, but it's almost as if the PPD claim is deemed plausible, then it carries enough weight to negate any evidence to the contrary. That is like saying you must fully accept the defendant's story at face value if it simply COULD be true.

While that makes it acceptable as an admissible defense, I think it is given a disproportionate amount of weight in the final determination of guilt or innocence in the S.A. system. The weakness seems to be with the lack of clarity about the term "reasonable" or "reasonably"-- it seems to be such an evolving or vague concept that there is a tendency to just ignore it, leaving the defense burden of proof to be simply "possibly true."

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Nel made his closing case well at all. I think he blew it as a matter of fact. But it as though Masipa was able to just blow away all those feathers on his side of the scale.

And I do appreciate that she did find Oscar guilty of negligence that bordered on DE, but I also think she knowingly sentenced him to 5 years with the deliberate intent that he would be allowed out after a mere ten months incarceration. Unless OP really blew it, he effectively received a ten month sentence for his actions that took the life of Reeva Steenkamp.

Of course, I don't want to see any innocent people wrongly convicted for a tragic mistake, and it is understandable that the burden of proof is indeed very high for the prosecution. But I find the apparent ease with which a defendant can get off on claims of PPD to be very disturbing.

Aftermath, I admire your generosity of spirit, but I think OP was more traumatized by what he experienced that night and in the costly legal nightmare that ensued. I am not so sure he is yet capable of accepting full responsibility for taking the rest of Reeva's life away from her.

Every time I see someone zipping around town in a Mini-Cooper, I can't help but think that should be Reeva, driving carefree with the wind blowing in her hair, smiling and enjoying life.

Ten months is simply not appropriate... and mansion arrest is a joke, he will do whatever the hell he wants, I am sure.

For a jury the meaning of "reasonable" is up to the individual juror. I believe English judges now direct juries to be certain of guilt rather than being sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Presumably because not enough people were being found guilty ?

 

[Trotterly]

Really, You're not into wild speculation? Read BIB again

Just cause Oldwadge tried to get Mrs Stipp to agree with your line on media tainting and Roux tried it with the rest of the difficult witnesses in cross x.....but that's what they are paid to do, to undermine.
As a WS poster, one doesn't have to fall hook line and sinker in with Def. strategies.

So you believe it is possible that someone can be witness to things while they are asleep?

 

[soozieqtips]

If he was lying about the content of the netcare call the state would have called those people from Netcare to testify. Nothing is clear about what he did or didn't say. Given the extent of her injuries it was probably pretty clear that she needed immediate emergency attention so it can't be too surprising that he thought of rushing her there himself. If he struggled to get her out of the toilet he might have thought he would need help carrying her to the car to be as fast as possible. There is nothing to suggest that it was likely he downplayed her injuries.

The 'lies ' you refer to are not necessarily lies.

Then what are they? Sorry, but saying he asked Stander to call an ambulance was a lie. Absolutely a lie. And I doubt a single Netcare employee would admit advising OP to move a critically injured person with a shot to the head whose arm was almost severed and whose brain tissue was mingled with their hair. OP lied. You might call them not "necessarily" lies, but I call them deliberate and calculated lies. It doesn't seem to matter to you how many lies he told, as you brush them all off with he was "distraught", he may not have acted like other people would have done (you mean sanely?) or his lies were not "necessarily" lies. We get it. You have a reason for all his lies. In my opinion, he's just a sorry little who lied his way through most of his testimony (when he wasn't blaming everyone else for his errors!).

 

[cottonweaver]

Been though all this before. The only thing I am not clear on is the Stipp's housekeeper's testimony about hearing a baby crying or what else she heard or even when. I have not seen any kind of translation of her statement. Let me know if you have a link.

RSBM

BIB - me neither
Only thing I ever saw was Mrs. Stipp's account of the conversation which is obviously not the same thing.


Stipp testimony
"AS : The next morning I am part of a chat group, a WhatsApp chat group and all the girls started sharing their Valentines mornings what their husbands or boyfriends did for them and I just said to them we had a very crappy start to ours, ‘cos our neighbour killed his girlfriend. So they said to me and everyone’s response was that was terrible and I said it was and the thing that I remember the most and I don’t think I’ll ever forget was the screaming.
So we then got the children ready for school, my husband left to go to work, I opened the back door for my domestic worker at 7.45 and she asked me what happened the previous night. I said to her why, did she hear it, she said yes, she’s usually awake at about 3/3.15 talking to her husband and she heard this woman screaming. She at first thought it was a baby but going out and listening more carefully she determined that it was a woman. I told her that we had an incident across the road, so I started working at about 8am on the computer which is in the study on the other side of the house and at about 8.20 I got a call from a friend and she said to me, have I listened to the news, and I said to her no why, she says ‘cos I am sure that the person you were talking about this morning is Oscar Pistorius. And that’s when I found out the first time.."

 

[aftermath]

Then what are they? Sorry, but saying he asked Stander to call an ambulance was a lie. Absolutely a lie. And I doubt a single Netcare employee would admit advising OP to move a critically injured person with a shot to the head whose arm was almost severed and whose brain tissue was mingled with their hair. OP lied. You might call them not "necessarily" lies, but I call them deliberate and calculated lies. It doesn't seem to matter to you how many lies he told, as you brush them all off with he was "distraught", he may not have acted like other people would have done (you mean sanely?) or his lies were not "necessarily" lies. We get it. You have a reason for all his lies. In my opinion, he's just a sorry little who lied his way through most of his testimony (when he wasn't blaming everyone else for his errors!).

Why was no one from Netcare called by the state to set his account straight?

I am not brushing anything off but I am prepared to consider alternatives to 'he must be a lying '. Eg if someone shoots a loved one in error, might they be distraught? Yes. Might that extreme emotional state influence what he might have said /done /remembered? Yes. Do people react differently in emergencies? Yes. Does that mean some people react irrationally /unusually /unexpectedly? Yes.

 

[soozieqtips]

Why was no one from Netcare called by the state to set his account straight?

I am not brushing anything off but I am prepared to consider alternatives to 'he must be a lying '. Eg if someone shoots a loved one in error, might they be distraught? Yes. Might that extreme emotional state influence what he might have said /done /remembered? Yes. Do people react differently in emergencies? Yes. Does that mean some people react irrationally /unusually /unexpectedly? Yes.

BIB 1 - no one knows. All calls to the emergency services are supposed to be recorded, so you'd have thought a Netcare rep would have been called to clarify what advice was given.

BIB 2 - It's hard to imagine anyone thinking they'd asked a friend to call an ambulance when what they'd actually asked was for help lifting a body. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?

 

[lithgow1]

RSBM

BIB - me neither
Only thing I ever saw was Mrs. Stipp's account of the conversation which is obviously not the same thing.


Stipp testimony
"AS : The next morning I am part of a chat group, a WhatsApp chat group and all the girls started sharing their Valentines mornings what their husbands or boyfriends did for them and I just said to them we had a very crappy start to ours, ‘cos our neighbour killed his girlfriend. So they said to me and everyone’s response was that was terrible and I said it was and the thing that I remember the most and I don’t think I’ll ever forget was the screaming.
So we then got the children ready for school, my husband left to go to work, I opened the back door for my domestic worker at 7.45 and she asked me what happened the previous night. I said to her why, did she hear it, she said yes, she’s usually awake at about 3/3.15 talking to her husband and she heard this woman screaming. She at first thought it was a baby but going out and listening more carefully she determined that it was a woman. I told her that we had an incident across the road, so I started working at about 8am on the computer which is in the study on the other side of the house and at about 8.20 I got a call from a friend and she said to me, have I listened to the news, and I said to her no why, she says ‘cos I am sure that the person you were talking about this morning is Oscar Pistorius. And that’s when I found out the first time.."

Thank you for posting that. I had forgotten her testimony and up till now had been taking the word of GR Turner etc that Mrs Stipp`s domestic had claimed to have heard a baby crying as opposed to a woman screaming. He/she will no doubt cease making that claim now that you have made them aware of their mistaken recollection. So many people whose ears deceived them into thinking a grown man screaming was in fact a woman. Almost unbelievable isn`t it.

 

[lithgow1]

Do you have anything to back up any of your assertions though? Expertise or personal experience? Otherwise on what basis do you make these assertions?

BIB but that's the crying the defense says everyone heard. How do you know that crying or wailing is so utterly different from screaming that they couldn't be mistaken?? I would have thought that sobbing is different but crying out or wailing isn't really. And besides we have 4 witnesses who heard female screaming and at the same time one witness who heard a baby/woman crying which shows that the same noise that night was heard both as screaming and crying - so there's no good reason to say that screaming and crying can't be mistaken. Can't you see that??

There were two sets of shots heard by the Stipps and the female screaming was in between them. So the screams were either after the shots or before the shots depending on which are the real shots. The defense say it's the first so both crying and screaming are after the shots. The state say the second are the real shots - as they had to to make the screaming Reeva's - but the timeline and the state's case put those shots too late - at 3.17 as one of the close neighbours reports male crying at 3.16.

If that refers to Mrs Stipp`s domestic you need to edit it for accuracy eh. She heard a woman screaming, not crying.

 

[cottonweaver]

Been though all this before. ..........

It may be a language difference in translation, but most people know the meaning of and the sounds associated with the word "scream" versus what "crying" sounds like and what brings it on.

RSBM

Agreed we have been through all this before, most recently in July? ( Was beginning to think I was suffering from very early onset dementia - ie. repetition of same questions/answers. )

screaming again male vs. female.
“But what’s surprising in all this is that the entire range of men’s and women’s voices remains between about 65 Hz for a male with a very deep bass voice to the highest note of a female coloratura soprano, just above 1,000 Hz, at 1,280 Hz. (A female high-pitched scream can go quite a bit higher, to around 3,000 Hz.) –“

So let’s imagine a male high voice gets to 1000Hz, that leaves us with a female scream still 2000 hz away. "

See more at: http://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/audi...e-and-children’s-voices/#sthash.RGs8yWxs.dpuf

Defense sound engineer under cross said - yes typically one can differentiate between male and female screams although that cannot be 100% certain.

screaming vs crying:
Bystanders posts plus my link to new research
"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.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thank you for posting that. I had forgotten her testimony and up till now had been taking the word of GR Turner etc that Mrs Stipp`s domestic had claimed to have heard a baby crying as opposed to a woman screaming. He/she will no doubt cease making that claim now that you have made them aware of their mistaken recollection. So many people whose ears deceived them into thinking a grown man screaming was in fact a woman. Almost unbelievable isn`t it.

yes, i was going to post it earlier but i got side tracked.

Oldwadge edited the "second part" out during his cross of Stipp.
Ie. he has the maid's statement in his hand but reads out to Stipp the part about baby crying not the part when maid seeks to clarify for herself that it was a woman.
Then he proceeds to question Stipp: so how come she didn't hear that crying etc.

Also the difficulties of translation across the 3 languages was discussed.
He gets reprimanded by Masipa a few times, asks the witness to speculate etc etc.