Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

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

I will lose days.

Aw Nerf, that would be great. Between you and Looking, we would get a good handle on the evidence.

But I do understand that it will take a lot of your time

There definitely were gunshots. The more distant neighbours heard them. The closer neighbours did not. Therefore, distance is clearly not the determining factor in someone hearing something.

Thanks YNK

I'm dying to see Woolmaran. From what I have heard he is very well respected and I doubt he will tarnish his reputation by being mislead!

Did anyone see the bit where Roux tried to round on Dr Stipp about his view of the bathroom window?
Dr Stipp completely agreed with him that from the balcony his view would be obscured by trees!
Stipp eventually explained that he had moved to his other balcony for an uninterrupted view! Roux's expression was a picture!
Sorry, again I don't have the link to immediate hand)

Nerf - I think the houses in between have been built since the shooting in Feb 2013 IIRC.

I must confess to also having been tempted by the old Excel doc, one cell to a minute, one column to a witness idea. Perhaps we could do a Google doc and share it with my lady? :)

Nerf no houses between Stipp and OP at the time of the killing, only some trees.
Houses have since been built between them

Nerf I used to live in a first floor flat and the sound that carried from the ground floor across long distances (remember a party one night that was a great distance away that felt like it was in the same block!) was astonishing. Don't let mere metres cloud the other evidence...

Bugger it - closing arguments might not be televised!

I'm still amazed , talking of all this sound stuff, that Frank hasn't been forced to talk. I know the arguments about him needing his job and isn't it good he hasn't been, but there's something a bit unpleasant about him possibly holding the key to the whole thing.

I suppose if someone just says "I heard nothing" then no point having him as a witness. How could he be forced to talk if he didn't want to?

There is talk on DS of Frank being on a secluded tropical island smoking a fat cigar!
Coutesy of Rupert Murdoch and/or the Pistorians

I imagine the truth is very far from that......

YNK how do you know they might not be televised and why?!

Great thread im trying to catch up!

Another rumour from DS I'm afraid!
It may be that the argument will be presented by written report, and if not it will be at Judge Masipa's discretion.

I read that on the BBC earlier, I'm sure. Can't find the article now though! They basically said it would usually be submitted in writing but given the publicity & interest in this case they might read it out. It would seem strange for them to have conducted the whole thing streamed live around the world & not the conclusions of each side. Hopefully they will & some of our questions will get answered!

for other charges

www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/oscar-pistorius/53387/oscar-pistorius-denies-sinister-remark-reeva-s-friend

Am at work all day - could someone post a link to the feed for later, so I can watch it, I would be v grateful

Nerf, I'm going to crack on with the transcription. It's largely for my benefit (I'm about to be made redundant, and this would be a good skill to hone), and a minute by minute would be good to go with it.

I wonder if there's a safe place on line to put all the documents.

The problem with a minute by minute though, is that many of the earwitnesses didn't stand there with a stopwatch.

Burger says she heard; a woman's screams that woke her up. A woman shouting for help. A man shout for help three times. Further woman's screams which happened throughout the shooting. A tailing scream approximately 2 seconds after the last shot.

There was a timestamp in her testimony which was her calling the (wrong) security. This happened, according to her, before the final screams and gunshots.

For the interests of impartiality, I should say that Roux spent some time trying to point out a contradiction between her evidence and her statement. Her statement read (this was translated) 'I heard screams, then a gunshot, there were four gunshots, and the last time I heard her voice was approximately two seconds after the last shot.'

Roux says (and I hated him at this moment) that she wasn't telling the truth either at the statement or at the court, because she did not say, in the statement 'there were screams during the gunshots'.

Nel pointed out that it was implied - I heard her scream... and the last I heard that woman scream was 2 seconds after. He said there's nothing to say that she stopped screaming and then started again.

It was a quibbling bit and even Nel could see what Roux was getting at, but suggested we need to accept the normal syntax in which people speak. The clarification came in court.

I know it's just his job, but Roux annoyed me with grilling her like she was the one on trial. I'm not surprised any of the witnesses are reluctant to come to court.

Thanks looking - but Nel can't really complain - low voice/whisper etc!
I can see what you mean about the difficulty with the minute by minute thing - maybe I could colour code it - definite phone calls in red, events either side in blue...

Also, just to say, I agree with the other people about the closer witnesses - the next door neighbours didn't hear the single loudest part of that evening, which was the gunshots. I'm not prepared to take from that that they would have heard the row that preceded all of it.

On acoustics - our house is very close to the railway. It's about 30 metres or so. Until last year, there was a small, single story factory between us, but that's been pulled down and two houses have been put there. I popped next door for welcome drinks, and you cannot hear the railway from their houses. They have good wall insulation, good and modern double glazing, and if there's a TV on or people chatting, you can't hear it. The house I was in was right next to the line - about 5 metres.

Back to our house and you can hear everything. The windows aren't brilliantly fitted, there's no insulation, the old fashioned and draughty floorboard (in a storm, it feels like there's not much house there really. You can hear lorries and trains going past. Hell, you can hear people talking when they walk past on the pavement at the bottom of the garden ten metres and a drop away.

I think the distance thing would work if; all the houses were set up the same way - all windows open or none of them. All the house had the same level of ambient sound - so all air conditioning or none of them. The distance works if it's a like for like comparison, but we don't know if it is or not, because the next door neighbours weren't asked about their windows/air conditioning. It was just clarified that they didn't hear the gunshots - one woke up on the last bang, so they were asleep when any alleged row happened.

Also, from what I recollect, only ONE other neighbour heard what might have been an argument. The others woke with the louder screams that preceded the gunshots.

definite phone calls in red, events either side in blue...

This would work brilliantly.

I see what you're saying about Nel, but the difference is, he did this to the accused. Roux did it to a witness. Other than with Dixon, who was standing as an expert witness rather than a lay witness, Nel hasn't suggested any of the defence witnesses are lying. Hell, he didn't even say that about Dixon - he just pointed out he wasn't running particularly scientific tests, which, given his 'expert' moniker, he should have been.

Burger was just someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Roux treated her like dirt.

I would imagine that it is more Nel that has put the witnesses off. His destruction of Dixon was a perfect example of why it's not worth being a witness (although brought on by himself). Then there is the low tone/whisper discussion which I think was ridiculous, it's just playing with words. I don't actually think these tactics will get past the judge either, she will see through them.

Anyway, re the DS post of yesterday, all I took from that just that Roux was attempting to discredit Stipp by implying he heard shouts for help after 3.27am which was impossible? Just a little trick used. Is that it or have I missed something? How does it add weight to Stipp's testimony?

I hope people aren't joking about the Excel table! I was actually thinking the exact same thing - it would save a lot of time if there was something like that to refer to. Just saying name, the time they heard the first noise, what that first noise was etc etc. But, I'm not volunteering to do it :)

How weird nerf, cross post with exactly the same thoughts re Nel tactics too.

looking I would still rather be cross examined by Roux than Nel, given a choice. Although would actually do anything to avoid either - no wonder Frank and others don't want to testify. The fact that it is televised must really put people off as well.