Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

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

So Bonnie is he/she some kind of legal expert then?

YNK that's what I mean, I just can't follow it and I don't have time to double check anything to see if it's factual.
Personally I'm going with the bigger picture rather than the detail- so I'm kind of , close ear witnesses didn't hear a row, so I doubt there was one.
Confused about the damage to bedroom door and bath panel.
Not sure that the timings are important - the calls were made due to either hearing something or being in the house with a dying/dead person. I still think the noises and order could be confused by the witnesses.

I mean timings of when they heard stuff not when they called.

'Personally I'm going with the bigger picture rather than the detail- so I'm kind of , close ear witnesses didn't hear a row, so I doubt there was one.'

But you can see that none of the close ear witnesses heard gunshots either and they definitely happened. So the fact that they didn't't hear an argument, which happened when they were sleeping, isn't evidence that there was no argument. That would be like saying because they heard no gunshots then there can't have been any.

I don't think so springy but I stopped following DS a while ago so she may have said since then.

Yes stack I get that. But i don't believe from what I've heard that an argument blew up out of nowhere and Reeva was deliberately shot. The only argument type stuff comes from neighbours who were very far away.

What I need to do is list the ear witnesses, where they were distance wise, and what order they heard stuff in. Might have time this weekend and then I'll change my mind again.

Thanks Bonnie. I stopped reading DS as it was full of speculation and self professed experts.

That's why I stick to MN and don't post on digital spy

It isn't only distance which determined how well sound carries.

Also some people sleep through things which others do not. There were gunshots, we know that, but the nearer neighbours did not hear them whereas the more distant neighbours did.

YNK could you give a quick summary of ^^ please! I got confused reading it thanks!

Nerf I feel more comfortable than ever with the prosecution ear witness testimonies since hearing the defence ear witness testimonies. If anything, it illustrates that being sub-twenty metres away means nothing in terms of acoustics.

I, for one, would love to see a comparison of distances, time, sounds heard etc for clarity. I can just about hold the details in my head and feel confident they make sense, but would have to research before writing them out...

Nerf - don't even try it. You saw what happened to me the other day....I couldn't count or tell my minutes from seconds, the next thing I'm vomiting (not in the OP sense either).
These lawyers and judges that can cut through all the confusion really have my respect!
Their brains must be able to assimilate info at the speed of light,while making it look like they are laid back to the point of being horizontal!

YNK That (really long) post that you copied makes perfect sense - so glad Dr. Stipp remained firm in his version, yet confused...bet he's had time to check his records since.

Donmack on DS is able to cut through all the crap and present the facts in a logical and easily understood way. That's why her post about OP's version has been quoted all over the place.

One step, very, very simply put, Roux was trying to bamboozle Stipp with a timeline from the security phones that didn't give information about the calls Stipp made to them that didn't connect because they were engaged! (to cut a very long story short).
He tried to make out his list of calls was correct (which it was, but not complete) because it came from the defense!
Stipp must be a very real danger to the defense!
I bet his turning up when he did was a real scunner for OP!

PD , I might try.
If this was my job it would be fine, but because I'm just following it and not making detailed notes (obviously!) it's hard to remember who said what.

Isn't it weird how we can listen to the same thing and come to different conclusions?

I see from Barry Bateman's twitter that he thinks it will be an anaesthetist first tomorrow, followed by Wolmarans, the ballistic expert.

The anaesthetist will give evidence about gastric emptying. Should be interesting

Hillwalker I agree, I think posters shouldn't get so hung up on 'metres', when there are so many other factors to consider; windows/doors being open or closed, witnesses already awake in the hour beforehand, acoustics, being able to actually see the toilet/bathroom, lights on/off etc...

But as the state didn't present anything else to do with acoustics, I'm going by the very rough guide that the further away you are, the less likely you are to be accurate.

It's easy enough to scroll past the speculators though, and after a while you get to recognise which posters make the most sense!
FYI, I mostly lurk on other sites. I am unreasonably loyal to MN!

Nerf, the thing about the Stipps was their house although further away, had bedroom balconies that backed onto OP's (before other houses were built in between) as the crow flies.
Even the NDN's would hear the sound only once it had to pass through walls and other obstacles.

Do it Nerf! Might I suggest creating a excel doc with one witness per column, one cell per minute? That would be a real side by side comparison!

So were there houses in between at the time of the shooting? I missed that bit, am confused by all the maps with red lines and white flashy circles!

Do not tempt me PD. I am very very pedantic in my real life.