I see R. I do see. Thanks for that. That kind of bothered me, but I see there IS a reasonable explanation. OK.

If gunshots started 3:17... you'd have to give some time to fire, recover etc. It simply takes human beings time to do stuff. He had to at least get bat (or pick it up if you think it was there already?) and bash door, wrench it open, drag body out, make 3 phone calls, go to bedroom and put legs on, come back... minimum stuff and I would contend any human being would be pausing to look think, be horrified etc. I really still consider it impossible for shots to have been at 3:17. First phone call at 3:19, Stander at 3:22.

I dont even think you could do it after rehearsing and going for it like an Olympic event... I see it as impossible.

On top of that it would require that NOBODY heard the bat strikes, though all witnesses were alerted to something serious happening, and it leaves sounds earlier that the Stipps were SURE with gunshots unexplained. People have posted that those sounds could be any old thing... doors slamming etc. Funny that people will accept that a door slamming CAN sound exactly like a gunshot(to a guy with military experience).. but will not entertain the idea that a frantic bashing of a door with a bat can sound anything like a gunshot? Not sure how you slam a door 3 or 4 times in rapid succession?

IF Nel wants to contend that something other than gun or bat on door made "Gunshot noises" why has he not done sound tests to show say a door slamming sounds anything like a gunshot? Maybe he tried and failed?


Regardless. Nel has not presented evidence of a third event that caused noises that sounded just like gun shots. What the Judge has before her is TWO events that made loud bangs, and two witnesses (closest) who heard two sets of bangs. I think I KNOW what the Judge will make of that, and the rest of the "Gestalt" from the State evidence.

I do have high hopes for a reasoned deliberation, and sensible decision from a Judge. I would be less confident if this trial was before a Jury

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Gestalt means (roughly) looking at the whole picture. In this case all of the STATE evidence:

Two events KNOWN to produce loud bangs.
Two sets of bangs heard
State expert stating gunshots were first
Every witness that heard screams heard them after time of first bangs AND before time of second bangs.

Take that lot, and combine---->Gestalt

Gunshots-----> screams---> cricket bat

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

With the unfolding now of the evidence and putting the pieces in the puzzle with regards to the Burgers and Stipps hearing a man's voice intermingled with the screaming, it is obvious what they heard.

Both voices were Pistorius. He shrieked in the high decibel screaming range seeing what he was seeing and then would alternately revert briefly to his more normal range lower pitched voice before then shrieking again at the thought of what he had accidentally done. Both voices and tonal quality would be noticeably different and sound like two different people. Pistorius was functioning on pure adrenalin with the brain going on autopilot and sending out the emotional responses.

As long as he is capable of a voice abnormally higher pitched than the typical male voice (which he is, and I expect sound tests will prove it) this clearly explains why the witnesses were hearing perceptibly different simultaneous voices.

Once you realize and accept that the gun bang sounds at 3:17 was indeed the cricket bat, the screaming before these perceived bangs was Oscar vacillating between the two voices 10-15 minutes prior to 3:17, seeing the aftermath of what he had done and trying to process what he should do.

Another conundrum in the case explained.

I think due to the various time differences, particularly when the case re-starts, it's important to keep this thread updated.

I don't think any of us knows what we would do in a similar situation, if we had a gun beside us - bearing in mind the laws with regard to private firearms in South Africa are different from many other parts of the world, also that SA is an extremely violent country. We can only 'imagine' what we ourselves might do.

If it were me, living in SA a country I've visited because my cousin now resident in Orange County, lived there from the early 70s until the mid to late 80s, when it was even more violent. I know how they live, had I been in my bedroom in similar circumstances, I would not have hesitated hearing noises it would automatically tell me my home had been invaded, so I would react.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

There is much "chatter" about the likely Defence evidence of a recording of OP Screaming.

People seem to miss the point (surprise). Such a demonstration (if it happens) is not going to be PROOF that OP sounds exactly like a woman, that he does a good job of "female scream impersonation", but rather just a demonstration that OP's voice can produce just the same sort of sound as a woman screaming. The demonstration should be about the person HEARING the sounds more so than OP's skills as a female impersonator. People can, and often do, make mistakes in what they perceive sounds (and sights) to be.

I see further chatter claiming that Roux should have played the recording of OP screaming to the two couples who are the only State ear witnesses who heard "a woman screams". That of course would be a very UN scientific test.. and in fact a bit silly and futile. Of course the Burgers and Stipps are convinced they heard a woman (Reeva) scream, and so we KNOW for certain before anybody plays them an ID recording that their answer would be "NO". A scientific (psychological) test of this type requires that test subjects are unaware. Such a audio "ID parade" would be analogous to asking a witness to ID an offender in a normal line up... when they BELIEVE the offender is dead and so is definitely NOT in the line up. Or perhaps showing the witness a photo that they are already convinced is not the offender and asking them if it is the offender. It makes no sense.

Any sort of audio ID test would be difficult and take a lot of time and effort to prepare and run. I have suggested recording a large number of different people screaming (under conditions and over some distance appropriate in this case) and then playing those recordings to witnesses and asking them to identify which were male and which were female. It would be interesting to see the results. My prediction is that such a test would show that a statistically significant number of people make mistakes in identifying Gender.
Such a test could well become a bit of a "circus" if tried in court. It would be just as well to do such a test, in advance with volunteers as test subjects tasked with identifying screams. I wonder if Roux has done that?

I am not aware of such a test having been done, in the Psychology Scientific literature... I have not looked
But I KNOW that psychology experiments abound showing the limitations of human perception, and how easily people can be "fooled" in their perceptions. It may well be that there are already studies done that are relevant to this case situation, and documented in reputable Psychology Scientific Journals. Who knows? Roux could perhaps present an expert in the form of a Psychologist who can testify to the limitations of human perception.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

And, this is absolutely correct.

It still amazes me that some people are taking the 'scream' test as proof, but I also think some people just don't get it, as you say Rumpy - but these are the same voices who will have someone convicted of a crime before they've even heard all of the evidence - no matter what the trial is about or where.

It's a sad fact that some of these same people, have or will one day sit on a jury to decide someone's fate. It won't of course, happen in South Africa because they don't use the jury system.

Kinda, sorta, makes you think huh?

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I have skimmed through True Gossip Forum posts.... even with no new information from the trial they are in a "feeding frenzy" still... but only have their own previous Daft notions to feed on... and so the Daft is being compounded. It is akin to sneaking a peak into the Twilight Zone!

To paraphrase the "Catatonia" Song "International Velvet".....

"Everyday, when I wake up,
I thank the Lord that this trial will NOT be decided by a Jury"


And..... that's a good excuse to listen to the song and look at photos of Cerys Mathews

Catatonia - International Velvet

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Just to illustrate the point that "Human Perception" is not a matter of absolutes...

What we see (and hear) is to some extent a construct that our brain adds to data....


Amazing Animated Optical Illusions!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

That's a good illustration. What the eyes see, are different from how the brain interprets what the eyes see, if you see what I mean - no pun intended.

I've never been on the true gossip forum (if that's what it's called) will check it out, but I take some of the theories I've seen from around here and on the net - it's quite ridiculous at times.

I agree with you, mind you for many years, I have not been in favour of jury trials - I'll explain why in another thread.

But, in this particular case, I absolutely agree, I'm pleased (pre-verdict) it is being decided upon by a Judge.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

"True Gossip Forum" is a term I use to describe some sites that claim to be "True Crime Forums"

I don't want to name any in this instance.... I would rather leave it as "If the cap fits, wear it"

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

understand completely, no worries,

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

MICHELLE BURGER

Direct Exam:
Day 1, Part 1; 44:33 -53:00

• "Just after 3:00, I woke up from a woman's terrible screams"
  
• "She screamed terribly and she yelled for help"
  
• Burger dialed security, husband talked to security, repeated the story twice and then informed Burger that it was the wrong security number. Husband went back to balcony
  
• "I heard the screams again"
  
• "Just after her screams, I heard 4 shots - it was 4 gunshots that I heard... bang (pause) bang, bang, bang"
  
• "After the shots we did not hear screams any more"

Notes:

• During direct exam, Burger makes no mention of hearing a man screaming or yelling "help, help, help"
  
• No mention of man and woman voices intermingled
  
• No mention of screaming during shots

Cross Exam:
Day 1, Part 2; 5:50 - End

• "I did not hear the cricket bat bangs on the door, however, I did hear the gunshots"
  
• "It's not possible" that there were gunshots that I didn't hear when I was asleep ... "There's no way"
  
• "Clearly heard 4 gunshots after I made the telephone call"
  
• @9:15 - "[My husband] also heard 4 gunshots" -- quickly changed her testimony that he may have heard "a couple" - "4, 5 or 6"
• @ 26:00 "When the shots started, I again heard the woman scream".
  
• "During the shots, I heard the woman screaming"
  
• @30:50 "I confirm that just after the last shot, I heard her scream - her voice"
  
• @32:50 - "I was woken up by a woman's petrified screams. I heard her screaming first. Then I heard her call for help. Then I heard a man call for help three times. I then made a call - I gave the phone to my husband and he spoke to security. Afterwards, I heard the woman's petrified screams again. Shortly after that (tape misfeeds)....I heard her screaming some time during the shots ...and shortly after the shots was the last time I heard that woman shout"

Day 1, Part 3 (cross examination continued); 6:15 - END

• Reading from Burger's written statement
• "I heard the woman scream" - none of the emotional descriptions
• "The woman gave the last scream approximately 2 seconds after the last shot" - no mention of screams during shots
• @24:00 Interestingly puts other witness statements to Burger and mentions he doesn’t know if they’re true - they could be lying or Captain Van Ardt could have manipulated their statements
  
• "I can only state that I heard the shooting and not the cricket bat, I heard 4 shots"
  
• "I'm certain what I heard was a woman, so I'm convinced it wasn't Mr Pistorius"
  
• There's a long back and forth with Burger adamantly refusing to concede that cricket bat can sound like gunshots, persists that she is 100% certain the noise she heard was gunshots and not cricket bats - although she acknowledges that she doesn't know what a cricket bat hitting the door sounds like
  
• Burger explains that she started in music early and hears rhythm automatically and that's how she knows it was 4 shots

Notes:

• Written statement contains no emotional description of screams
  
• Written statement does not mention screams during the shots

Listening to Burger again, it really jumps out how belligerent she is and unyielding when it comes to making obvious concessions - like refusal to even acknowledge that there may have been gunshot sounds she didn't hear because she was sleeping

Welcome to RT minor4th

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Thanks Rumpole Just finding my way around.

I plan to continue to listen to the ear witness testimony and post summaries like I did for Burger ...at least til the trial starts up again.

Great idea, minor.

It's good to have the info here for discussion, but I will also start a thread (no discussion) where the info is archived as a reference

ETA
I started a thread for Witness testimony details.

PISTORIUS REFERENCE - Witness Testimony (NO DISCUSSION)
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1237

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I do agree with your general point, minor, that Burger was belligerent and clearly pushing an agenda that she would not be dissuaded from. It went beyond just sticking to her testimony. She was actually embellishing as she went to counter questioning. She added the descriptives such as "blood curdling screams" and "screaming for her life" etc to bolster her own preconceived interpretation of what she heard, She certainly went beyond testifying to what she heard and wanted to PUSH what her interpretation was. She is convinced that Op is lying (she said very close to that as her reason for coming forward in the first place). She is also convinced that she heard Reeva screaming and then OP shoot her. She settled on "4 shots" because that was reported in the news (and bail hearing) she clearly has tailored her testimony to match what she now thinks happened. It is not exactly "lying"... her notions of what happened are something she honestly believes (now).
I noted her belligerence and intransigence when she was testifying... it was quite obvious. When Roux attempted to pin her down on a point, it was often clear that she was avoiding the obvious answer, which she thought Roux was after... she instead went back to an earlier part of her (rehearsed) narrative and repeated a long passage from it.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I remember thinking Burger was belligerent and unyielding when she first testified, but that was long ago and I wasn't used to the SA process and haven't listened to her testimony since then - until now when I made those notes. Now that we've heard from several witnesses, it really struck me just how evasive she was and how often she flat out refused to answer Roux' simple questions. To the point that the judge admonished her.

For "comfort" I fall back on my belief (at least hope) that a judge sees points like this. I assume the judge will review transcripts of testimony at least? I wonder if she will watch video replays of trial? I am quite happy with all that has happened in the trial so far, provided it is all seen and given the "weight" it deserves.
This is not this Judge's "first Rodeo" ... she should be well aware of what the general manner of testimony says about the content. She should be aware of what a witness CAN testify to, separate from the witness’s own interpretation... I do still have high hopes for an assessment and decision by a judge being "safer" than by a Jury.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I also have confidence in the judge. I believe she will note the demeanor of each witness and will give them the proper weight.