Re: The SA judicial system. I am still having difficulty with the Defense Attorney being able to question a witness based on "facts" that he, the defense attorney, has made up or interpreted in his own unique way. I am also amazed at the use of information that has not been properly introduced as evidence. Such as when questioning the doctor he stated "I've spoken to three medical experts and they each said that based on the head injury, she would not have been able to scream after receiving that injury. Do you agree with this?" It just seems like the Defense Attorney could make up whatever he wants to. Would he be able to say "I've talked to three sound experts and they all said nobody could hear anything more than 20 meters away from the bathroom"?
If there is anyone from South Africa who could explain the rules of evidence/rules of questioning in a criminal matter, I think we Americans would appreciate it greatly.
------------
Re: The screams
I am with those who feel that if even one person heard
one female scream, he is guilty. Because that means he knew she was in that toilet area. And there are now four witnesses who have testified they heard a woman's screams.
So the defense has to say that ALL the screams heard by everybody were OP sounding like a woman? Give me a break!
Also, I think perhaps the bathroom window WAS open and that's one of the reasons why the screams could be heard that night. But not the only one.
------------
Re: How sound carries
Thanks to another poster mentioning "wave superpositioning" I went and did some reading on this phenomenon. It is pretty technical for me, but what I got out of it is that temperature, humidity, wind, elevation, and topography all factor in to what happens to a sound wave once it is generated. Oh, and also the pitch or frequency of the source of the sound.
So really, the chances of any "recreation" of how far a sound will carry being accurate would be dependent on being able to recreate the exact ground temperature, air temperature, humidity, wind speed, etc. etc.
It is highly, highly variable. But it does explain the ability to hear sounds from a far distance at certain times under certain conditions. Perhaps this was just one of those nights that sound was carrying quite well. And I am glad it was.
But anyone trying to say it was impossible for these witnesses to have heard what they heard is just wrong.
-------------
The two cell phones in the bathroom:
It was Valentine's Day. She bought him a present. He did not buy her a present? They ate at home as opposed to going out for a dinner. He was on the phone with his buddies for several hours earlier in the evening. He was watching




. NOT the typical behaviors of a couple who were "deeply in love" three months into their relationship, according to OP.
I do not think she was asleep prior to going into the toilet. Perhaps she took her own phone and HIS cell phone into the bathroom with her. So she could check out what was on his phone. He was up and around the bedroom moving fans, adjusting draperies and blinds. Did he notice his cell phone was missing, then go into the bathroom and confront her through the closed toilet door about his missing cellphone?
She would lock the door. He would beat on the door and scream at her, demanding she open the door. She would refuse to open the door. He would threaten to beat the door down. He would go and get the cricket bat, perhaps stopping to put on his prostheses, returning to the bathroom and striking the door with the bat. He may have already gotten the gun also or would have had to go back to the bedroom once again to get it.
In terms of escalating frustration and violence the screaming first, then the cricket bat battering door, then shooting at door makes sense.
I would like to see an in-court demo of a man with highly developed upper arm strength striking the same type of door with the same type of a cricket bat to see what level of noise it makes.