Trial Discussion Thread #43 - 14.06.30 Day 33

[G.bng]

I got that thought from a lawyer in SA, but what does he know when there are experts like you about.

It is not unusual that a lawyer would not understand the difference between "intent" and an automatic and unconscious compensatory act unless expert in disability issues so perhaps your lawyer has not worked closely with people with disabilities and their issues as I nor has persons in their family with severe disabilities as I do.

Masipa suffers from disability and mobility issues herself so will understand how the body and mind compensate for activities it cannot do normally and how supports and tricks to do something can become second nature to the extent the person doesn't even realise they do it. Possibly why today some here appear to be losing trust in her since she has appeared to understand better than others.

And yes I am an "expert" in disability issues having for now over 12 years worked as a voluntary advocate for adults and families with disabilities and also an activist for equal rights and non discrimination in that respect. Any problem?

 

[zwiebel]

Witness now reading list of inane points...

do all female screams sound alike?
do all male screams sound alike?

And what a surprise. The expert answer is: 'Not always'!!

 

[canny]

Ugh. Just reading whole list of definitions and I can hardly understand a word. He is gabbling.

Ah. So Roux just explained the witness testimony for us. Summed up as that, because of human psychology, two people can heard the same noise and hear it differently.

I think this testimony is meaningless.

This witness does have a Chinese accent.

 

[jay-jay]

I'm wondering the opposite - whether she's trying to ensure that her trial seems 100% fair and so that there's no grounds for appeal when she gives him a hefty fine. Hence the mental health assessment etc.

~rsbm~

.. well, I've been of that view right up until now, but it's starting to get ridiculous.

 

[zwiebel]

Lol, how 'scientific' is that?

'Not always'???

He is quoting 'from research I read' but not stating which research.

 

[katydid23]

He is reading from a textbook. " See figure 2.1..." WTH?

 

[Val1]

Ugh. Just reading whole list of definitions and I can hardly understand a word. He is gabbling.

Ah. So Roux just explained the witness testimony for us. Summed up as that, because of human psychology, two people can heard the same noise and hear it differently.

I think this testimony is meaningless.

I hope Nel asks if the witness took into account someone who is an "expert" in sounds/music having heard the screams, as opposed to the average person who does not make their living from sounds/music and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between birdcalls let alone screams...

 

[zwiebel]

This witness does have a Chinese accent.

Yes. But that is not the problem. He is reading very fast, frrom his own report, rather than answering any thought-out questions from defence.

Roux is trying to bore the court into submission.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Oh, this is BS! This does not sound scientific to me.

 

[zwiebel]

Talking about sound transmission thru door and small window - but he is not interpreting his findings into layman's language for the court! Grrr.

 

[katydid23]

:waiting: :waiting: :waiting: :waiting:

 

[jay-jay]

Masipa suffers from disability and mobility issues herself so will understand how the body and mind compensate for activities it cannot do normally and how supports and tricks to do something can become second nature to the extent the person doesn't even realise they do it. Possibly why today some here appear to be losing trust in her since she has appeared to understand better than others.

~rsbm~

.. yes, but any of that only has any relevance if Pistorius shot Reeva by mistake. In my informed opinion of having read all the statements and listened to all the testimonies, he shot Reeva in cold blood after a vicious argument, on his prosthesis, and in which case, anything in regard to his disability doesn't even enter into it.

 

[kittychi]

This is just stupid, I'm becoming more and more annoyed with this Judge .. is there anything else she feels should've been kept as exhibits, like every single item in the house? I know the cable was important, but they have photographic evidence of it, showing the length of it, etc, etc .. that is the whole point of photographic evidence .. it's just not possible to retain every single physical item otherwise you would literally have a whole house full of stuff. In fact, you could argue that OP shouldn't even have sold the house until after the trial on the basis that it was considered an exhibit. The judge is nitpicking all this stuff and is going to assist OP to get off of murdering Reeva in cold blood .. I can see exactly where this is going and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to stick watching it much longer.

I agree with you and it makes me sick. God, how could that happen!?

 

[jimmy73]

In order to refute the witness testimony, surely the DT have to prove that the witnesses didn't hear what they heard, not that in some situations, some things might have been heard or not, or confused or not.

 

[kaos]

I've got a migraine that's causing blind spots so can't see half the text on these pages

 

[LaLaw2000]

:waiting: :waiting: :waiting: :waiting:

I'll see your 4 finger tappings and raise you one :floorlaugh:!

 

[zwiebel]

Next point - if sound source transmitted from bthroom it could continuate thru 3.8 DD thru.....

well, something like that. Roux is letting this go on deliberately, imo. Nel will not be able to cross on this evidence because it's impossible to tell what witness is actually saying unless you're a sound engineer.

 

[G.bng]

I'll be posting about the curtains either later tonight or tomorrow.

Are you one of those with blackout curtains? I cannot stand them, it's like sleeping underground and I get really claustrophobic!

 

[Forensics]

Barry Bateman has given up tweeting at this point.....

 

[zwiebel]

My summation:

Everything from humidity to doors to psychological perception can affect what we hear and when we hear it. So no-one who heard anything the night Reeva died can be trusted.