Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

Sorry lifted from Web Sleuths again: Mrs Stipp heard second set of bangs at 3:17 but with her clock 3 or 4 minutes fast. Therefore the last witnesses could have heard the second set of bangs before making a phone call at 3:16.

So this witness only got woken by crying, not by shots.
Isn't that just strange.

Good points roadkillbunny!

Have they asked these witnesses if they had their windows open?

Seriously - the defence think that that it's ok to have witnesses who heard crying but not shots? really?

Is it weird that Roux is only asking women to do impressions of the sound Oscar made whilst crying?

Stack - I think it's possible that the shots kind of rouse people but then they are woken by later sounds.

Welcome back roadkillbunny. So this witness had to do crying in the manner of what she heard to the Court

Again, Mrs Motshuane heard crying (and I have to say, I'm finding the example cries quite disturbing), but doesn't seem to have heard bangs.

Yes, voice. The testimony of the Ns fits in with that of the Stipps.

I type slow. But I'm glad it's not just me on both counts.

Is it weird that Roux is only asking women to do impressions of the sound Oscar made whilst crying?

Quite .

The dogs were barking by then...

"I'm not sure that I find it weird. If they had air-con, fans and had double glazing and the windows all shut, there's no reason why they would have heard much at all."

did they testify to all that. Might have missed it as I couldn't watch the first bit today.

did they testify to all that.

No, they didn't testify to that. I should have said, it's a plausible explanation. Another plausible explanation is that they did hear the bangs, but have lied about that. But if they were going to lie on OP's behalf, wouldn't they have lied in a way that corroborated his story?

'n short I think it is likely that OPs reactions, who he called and his actions in the time after he shot Reeva where all about self preservation and managing his public image.
While this gives an idea of the person OP is and also I think shows his unwillingness to be responsible for his actions it doesn't help at all when it comes to the questions about if he knew it was Reeva or not or if he intended to kill the person in the toilet or not.'

yes, roadkillbunny... I agree.

All the calls he made seem to have been about getting help for himself, not for Reeva.

If it is crying like she imitated - how on earth would she be so definite it was a man crying. Would you really be 100% sure of the gender - if I woke to hear screaming/crying, I wouldn't have a clue.

So the dogs did bark?

On a lighter note (sorry) - Nel's body language is quite funny. Chin resting on hand in sceptical mode.

Roux is apologising for the mess up of witnesses and saying Nel should be asking more questions - a moment of wry smiling by all as Judge Masipa suggests Roux could help Nel with some more questions

Adjourned till Thursday.

What is the point of the defence witnesses?

I mean that there were gun shots and the bat hitting the door so there were noises?

Yes. Well.

I'd suggest that Nel played a blinder in his limited questions today. 'Did you hear gunshots?' both no. The implication is that they clearly wouldn't have heard the row or the screams which the state says happened prior to the gunshots, so what point are they?

If reeva had screamed while being shot, then if they didn't hear the gun shots, they wouldn't have heard screaming?

Ooh. From WS today - "in order for Oscar's version to be true, the Stipps have to be the only people who heard gunshots". Thoughts?!

I know acoustics are different according to location, wind, etc. But I am not sure I'd be able to hear a bat being struck inside a house more than one or two houses away. Gunshot I know can be heard a fair way away - I live in central London and have heard it at night before...

So, despite the defence saying that OP's screams/crying were high pitched & could have been mistaken for a woman, this witness identifies them as coming from a man straight away?

"in order for Oscar's version to be true, the Stipps have to be the only people who heard gunshots"

Oo. Now you've said that, it looks quite startling.

I am not sure I'd be able to hear a bat being struck inside a house more than one or two houses away.

Yes indeed. The defence have been working quite hard to progress the 'but the bat sounds like the gun!' though their test of this wasn't exactly top-notch forensics. But now the above statement makes it look like they'd have to prove that the witnesses heard the bat, but not the gunshot. Which was, even with the rubbish recording, significantly louder and sharper than the bat. I thought the bat sounded like a gun until I heard the gun.

But you're right (I think, without looking back). Mr Stipp is the only person who's heard two sets of bangs (I think. Please someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.)

I can't get my head round it just yet

Day off for milady