Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

It was more like five minutes on his version


Mrs Vdm said she heard a woman's voice speaking loudly

By Pumza Fihlani BBC News, Pretoria

Well into day two of the trial, and a second witness, and another neighbour of Oscar Pistorius, has told the court about a commotion she heard in the early hours of the morning of the day Reeva Steenkamp was killed.
It is still early days, but this the state's argument that Mr Pistorius and his girlfriend of three months had had a terrible row before she died - a version of events the athlete denies.


"It seemed like somebody was involved in a fight," said Ms Van Der Merwe, who lives in the same gated Pretoria housing estate as the Paralympic athlete. "People were talking in loud voices."
The argument woke her at about 01:56 local time (23:56 GMT) and lasted about an hour. After that, she heard four loud sounds in succession.

 

[Colin de France]

By Pumza Fihlani BBC News, Pretoria

Well into day two of the trial, and a second witness, and another neighbour of Oscar Pistorius, has told the court about a commotion she heard in the early hours of the morning of the day Reeva Steenkamp was killed.
It is still early days, but this the state's argument that Mr Pistorius and his girlfriend of three months had had a terrible row before she died - a version of events the athlete denies.


"It seemed like somebody was involved in a fight," said Ms Van Der Merwe, who lives in the same gated Pretoria housing estate as the Paralympic athlete. "People were talking in loud voices."
The argument woke her at about 01:56 local time (23:56 GMT) and lasted about an hour. After that, she heard four loud sounds in succession.

..........which brings me around to the bruising sustained by Reeva before being shot .............

 

[lithgow1]

It was more like five minutes on his version


Mrs Vdm said she heard a woman's voice speaking loudly

How do you get five minutes? He called Stander at 3.19. Below is from the defence HOA.

At about 03:00 she heard four gunshots, which were confirmed by her husband to be gunshots. The shots were shortly one after the
other.

 

[cottonweaver]

The first link goes to an article about human hearing vs budgerigars so I didn't see its relevance.

I addressed the frequencies of the human voice in the second article in my post above.

You are right. It was my error - i pasted the wrong link next to the quote.
So I pasted a 150 word quote from neuroscientist Poppel and then the wrong link. Poppel doesn't even appear in that wrong one page summary about how scientists used to have to carry out the studies using animals before the tech advances.

Personally I would have just pointed that out ( as the error was obvious) and then still addressed the relevance of 150 word quote which explains why screams cannot be confused with wailing, crying, sobbing etc.

here's the correct source for Poppel
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...stics-that-trigger-our-fear-centre-identified

and there's loads loads more in science journals, but as i posted all these for you in thread 61/62 - I'm not sure you are really interested.

 

[Marfa Lights]

The internet is amazing...


http://www.sounddogs.com/results.asp?CategoryID=1033&SubcategoryID=24&Type=1

 

[cottonweaver]

By Pumza Fihlani BBC News, Pretoria



"It seemed like somebody was involved in a fight," said Ms Van Der Merwe, who lives in the same gated Pretoria housing estate as the Paralympic athlete. "People were talking in loud voices."
The argument woke her at about 01:56 local time (23:56 GMT) and lasted about an hour. After that, she heard four loud sounds in succession.

BIBs If posters only source from defence HofA, instead of using witness testimony, this is what happens. Big fat "Tippex " pen - ah let's wipe that and choose that part. I honestly find this quite sinister.

 

[cottonweaver]

Well that is certainly true. So what does he do? Phones a friend. I am surprised his second call wasn`t to a lawyer, followed by his PR/media person, then his coach, then the IOC.

But the humour helps relieve that.

 

[Interested Bystander]

You are right. It was my error - i pasted the wrong link next to the quote.
So I pasted a 150 word quote from neuroscientist Poppel and then the wrong link. Poppel doesn't even appear in that wrong one page summary about how scientists used to have to carry out the studies using animals before the tech advances.

Personally I would have just pointed that out ( as the error was obvious) and then still addressed the relevance of 150 word quote which explains why screams cannot be confused with wailing, crying, sobbing etc.

here's the correct source for Poppel
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...stics-that-trigger-our-fear-centre-identified

and there's loads loads more in science journals, but as i posted all these for you in thread 61/62 - I'm not sure you are really interested.

You are very right. Whilst dismissing evidence from upstanding, intelligent, ear witnesses who had no axe to grind and accepting ANYTHING OP, who had every reason to lie, said during his testimony beggars belief IMO. I fail to understand how anyone can absolutely trust anything OP said. One point that, for me, confirms his dishonesty is when he complained his friends had stabbed him in the back when they were witnesses. He quite obviously expected them to lie on his behalf whilst in the dock and under oath. What a jerk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026jtl1

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The internet is amazing...


http://www.sounddogs.com/results.asp?CategoryID=1033&SubcategoryID=24&Type=1

Top find!!! - If Roux had known ..................

 

[GR_Turner]

You are right. It was my error - i pasted the wrong link next to the quote.
So I pasted a 150 word quote from neuroscientist Poppel and then the wrong link. Poppel doesn't even appear in that wrong one page summary about how scientists used to have to carry out the studies using animals before the tech advances.

Personally I would have just pointed that out ( as the error was obvious) and then still addressed the relevance of 150 word quote which explains why screams cannot be confused with wailing, crying, sobbing etc.

here's the correct source for Poppel
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...stics-that-trigger-our-fear-centre-identified

and there's loads loads more in science journals, but as i posted all these for you in thread 61/62 - I'm not sure you are really interested.

I still don't see the relevance and yes I read the excerpt and didn't see the relevance then either. It is comparing screaming with talking so obviously it'd be different. We are talking about whether a man crying out in a high pitch and in fear and distress could possibly be mistaken for a woman screaming in fear and distress surely.

 

[Colin de France]

You are very right. Whilst dismissing evidence from upstanding, intelligent, ear witnesses who had no axe to grind and accepting ANYTHING OP, who had every reason to lie, said during his testimony beggars belief IMO. I fail to understand how anyone can absolutely trust anything OP said. One point that, for me, confirms his dishonesty is when he complained his friends had stabbed him in the back when they were witnesses. He quite obviously expected them to lie on his behalf whilst in the dock and under oath. What a jerk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026jtl1

....which brings into question Masipa's judgement..........again...! ...how could anyone of got it so wrong ....

 

[Colin de France]

I still don't see the relevance and yes I read the excerpt and didn't see the relevance then either. It is comparing screaming with talking so obviously it'd be different. We are talking about whether a man crying out in a high pitch and in fear and distress could possibly be mistaken for a woman screaming in fear and distress surely.

....in relation to Pistorius's screams........can you please pinpoint to what moment exactly you are referring to.....was it in the hallway, whilst firing, the balcony, or the arguement before the shooting........?

 

[GR_Turner]

You are very right. Whilst dismissing evidence from upstanding, intelligent, ear witnesses who had no axe to grind and accepting ANYTHING OP, who had every reason to lie, said during his testimony beggars belief IMO. I fail to understand how anyone can absolutely trust anything OP said. One point that, for me, confirms his dishonesty is when he complained his friends had stabbed him in the back when they were witnesses. He quite obviously expected them to lie on his behalf whilst in the dock and under oath. What a jerk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026jtl1

I don't believe everything he says, as you put it. The sum total of the neighbours and phones evidence leads me to think there's a very good chance that some of them mistook OP's cries for screams. Once and for all, no one is suggesting that these witnesses were lying, just that they were mistaken.

Well we don't whether his friends were lying in court or not, now do we. I wouldn't expect them to lie on his behalf but then perhaps he meant something else like Tresco's photo of the speedometer and the state's attempt to convince the court that it was OP driving.

 

[GR_Turner]

BIBs If posters only source from defence HofA, instead of using witness testimony, this is what happens. Big fat "Tippex " pen - ah let's wipe that and choose that part. I honestly find this quite sinister.

Did you look at the whole of her evidence? I'm sure she made it plain it was one voice she heard.

 

[lithgow1]

I don't believe everything he says, as you put it. The sum total of the neighbours and phones evidence leads me to think there's a very good chance that some of them mistook OP's cries for screams. Once and for all, no one is suggesting that these witnesses were lying, just that they were mistaken.

Well we don't whether his friends were lying in court or not, now do we. I wouldn't expect them to lie on his behalf but then perhaps he meant something else like Tresco's photo of the speedometer and the state's attempt to convince the court that it was OP driving.

I have yet to see you not jump to his defence no matter what is being discussed, to the point where you even try and put a positive spin on his own words when they damn him, such as you did with the question of why he didn`t fire a warning shot.

 

[Colin de France]

I have yet to see you not jump to his defence no matter what is being discussed, to the point where you even try and put a positive spin on his own words when they damn him, such as you did with the question of why he didn`t fire a warning shot.

.....i would also care to suggest that GR Turner is being highly selective in awnsering questions.........i await to be proved wrong ....

 

[lithgow1]

.....i would also care to suggest that GR Turner is being highly selective in awnsering questions.........i await to be proved wrong ....

Good luck. Perhaps since aftermath and GR Turner so often answer for one and other, Mr/Ms Turner will share with us their thoughts on what OP may have been doing in the 15+ minutes between the shots (just after 3 am) and his first phone call, to Stander (3.19 am).

 

[Colin de France]

Good luck. Perhaps since aftermath and GR Turner so often answer for one and other, Mr/Ms Turner will share with us their thoughts on what OP may have been doing in the 15+ minutes between the shots (just after 3 am) and his first phone call, to Stander (3.19 am).

.....and i also would like my questions awnsered as i myself always do if possible.........otherwise why engage on a public forum...?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't believe everything he says, as you put it. The sum total of the neighbours and phones evidence leads me to think there's a very good chance that some of them mistook OP's cries for screams. Once and for all, no one is suggesting that these witnesses were lying, just that they were mistaken.

Well we don't whether his friends were lying in court or not, now do we. I wouldn't expect them to lie on his behalf but then perhaps he meant something else like Tresco's photo of the speedometer and the state's attempt to convince the court that it was OP driving.

I am sorry to say that I find your responses disturbing to say the least. Again you attempt to validate OP.

 

[cottonweaver]

Did you look at the whole of her evidence? I'm sure she made it plain it was one voice she heard.

Obviously GR.
She gave significant detail as to what she heard about that voice. She could do that as she had had to listen to it for a very significant amount of time. ( Had she said, “I heard one voice, no idea of gender, no idea of vocal patterns, I put ear plugs in after 5 mins “– I would be with you saying this evidence does not tell us much.)

Have I ever heard a “one –sided argument”? Sure. Does it matter, not really but......

When I lived in the city – I heard plenty of those in the neighbourhood. Sometimes it was a case where you couldn’t hear the second person or in fact the second person was not responding.
Equally I have worked in a place where actors are practising alone, animated dialogue from scripts and that can sound strange initially and you tune in to work out the “puzzle”.
Also I have heard the pitiful monologues of those suffering from severe dementia who are literally arguing with themselves.