Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Say you have one sound at 25dB and another at 28dB. What do you think the comparative loudnesses would be? The second would be twice as loud at the first.

If you had a 10dB difference, say 25dB and 35dB the second would be ten times as loud.

The numbers don't really match up to what a person (thinking in linear terms) would perceive.

(I'm hoping I'm remembering this correctly, it was all a long time ago.)

Have been lurking and following these threads closely, really good discussions and opinions going on.

However, due to Holiday Brain Drain there is something that I can't remember, and can anyone clarify for me - I am sure I read somewhere that Reeva took both her phone and OP's to the toilet/bathroom - is that correct or have I got that completely wrong?

I'm glad you wrote that Gobbolinothewitchscat since it seemed to have become a given that OP would have been "coached" in the story he told.

Yes - I think this is why we have had a few instances of OP "blaming" his lawyers for things on x-exam. I recall one specific instance re his evidence in the bail affidavit

I think OP seems to think that they should have "stopped" him or encouraged him from saying certain things. But that's not their role. That said, this should have been made explicitly clear to him (in writing if needs be) and they should have obviously questioned him very carefully to make sure they could advise him properly

I think OP should definitely have pled guilty to the gun charges - idiotic not to and it's allowed the prosecution to introduce character evidence re his attitude to authority/temperament and guns that they wouldn't have ordinarily been able to. Plus, he looks like a liar saying the gun in the restaurant just went off in his hand. This is a man who - on undisputed evidence - carried a gun with him, on his person, every single day (bar travelling abroad, one could hope). His refi illite has been very seriously affected on quite minor charges. Plus, his barrister could then have said: "Hey, this is guy who tells the truth. Right away. No messing about. He's pled guilty right away. He knows he is in the wring. I give no don't he would have done the same with the other charges"

I do believe that OP will have been given advice to plead guilty to the culpable charge and show complete remorse. Which you can do relatively easily. Even if you don't feel too bad about Reeva. Then the thought if being bum raped in a South African prison fir 25 years is enough to make even the most hardened psychopath cry. Plus, it's quite hard for Gerrie Nel to attack that kind of evidence as he can't get in to the meat of the case as OP has pled guilty. End of. His evidence, in totals, could have been over in half a day.

I think, if he had done this, he could have had a round about 50% chance of getting a suspended sentence.

But he's not and is risking absolutely everything on not being found guilty of murder and the judge finding him not guilty on the lesser charges. To do that, he would have had to play a blinder in the witness box. Which he's not. So he's fucked. He'll definitely get time for the lesser murder charge - I think 12 - 15 years

I hadn't heard that RS had OP's phone too.

Photos of door taken in court after cleaner had cleaned door

Can you believe this? Cleaning ladies in the courtroom cleaned the reconstructed door during the trial?

I know it had probably already been contaminated afer being moved about etc etc, but honestly!

Cross post sorry!

And this;

t light in the court is better so he took the close up one on 13/03/14 inside court...

So the evidence produced to show the fibre on the door was taken while the door was in court, after it had been exposed to, among other things, cleaning cloths.

I just can't believe what I'm hearing, cleaners, cleaning THE door

Sorry. I guess we were all intrigued by that then.

Thanks for clarifying Member! Back to fence-perching.

Have to admit, my head is spinning today with all this. I see what Nel is doing, Mr Dixon is just like OP, he doesn't just answer questions, he goes all round the houses, so to speak, I'm not saying this is bad, I can't kind of understand why, obviously they want to get there points across too.

I've missed most of this morning but a PP was commenting about them not measuring the darkness levels. An expert on the BBC was saying that it's not enough to say how dark it is, it also depends how long the person was in the darkness as our eyes adjust and accommodate.

I must admit I expected the defence's witnesses to be much better. So far we have someone saying it was very dark but not qualifying it in a reasonable way (eg taking into account exposure time; light levels). We have a photo of someone kneeling at a window but (unless I missed this) nothing to say they are the same height as OP when on his stumps. We have an expert testifying about a sock that he didn't test (plus even if it was that sock, can they prove the kick happened on the same night?).

Gobbolino I was quite shocked that OP didn't say he was armed when he was shouting his warning. I just expected that was standard practice and advice but then I realised I have no experience of firearms so my expectation probably comes from tv!

*can

I've lost the feed again.

Adjourned for lunch.

I agree with Gobbolin above.

But wasn't it the defence testifying to OP's good character (Charity works, all round great guy etc) when OP first testified that opened door to bad character witness?

Seems like some huge but basic mistakes in his defence - firstly defending the gun charges, then opening the door to bad character witnesses. Roux is clearly no idiot - this leads me to think that OP has rejected some of their advice, and decided to do it his way, relying on his "fantastic personality" to get off.

Is this evidence of even more arrogance and I Know Best attitude from OP? When clearly he doesn't.

Book I get the impression much of OP's knowledge on guns etc comes from TV too!

Thanks nauticant. I can never understand noise and who it's measured

Can't watch the coverage as working, but one thing that came to mind this morning was - why was the gift and card unopened? RS had supposedly gone to spend Valentine's evening with OP, right? Wouldn't she have wanted to see him open the gift sometime that evening?

It brought me back to the possibility they were arguing and he didn't open it as they kept arguing or there was a bad atmosphere (until OP shot RS).

London it was the evening of the 13th feb Reeva stayed so valentines day was next morning, probably why gift not opened.

London - they spent the evening of the 13th together. Reeva was shot 3am on Valentines Day morning.

Oh, I see. Sorry for not picking that up - thanks Free and BeCool

I just can't see any way at all OP can be spared a custodial sentence - if not for murder, then for culpable homicide.

To not do this is basically saying to the people of SA, kill who you want to, as long as you THINK there MIGHT be a threat to you, kill who you want. And of course they can't do that.

Absolutely, BeCool. Crumbs, when you imagine what Reeva went through

London She was killed on VD so it is confusing somewhat.