Been meaning to post this and keep forgetting --

Both Van der Merwe and the Stipps' "domestic servant" initially thought the screams were a baby crying

I wonder if there are not several scientific papers (peer reviewed in Scientific, psychology Journals) that are applicable to the mis-perception of sounds, perhaps even screams. It is certainly a very common phenomena. If it's not been done already... it would take a lot of work to demonstrate properly... an interesting Phd (psychology) project on a plate.
I think a reputable "expert" psychologist could be of some use. Of course nobody could convince "the mob" but it's not at all an unusual phenomena and some expert testimony might assist the judge? Of course the strongest evidence that it was OP screaming, and not Reeva is the time line. The fact that the screams were after the shots, when Reeva was incapable of screaming.

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

Well, I think the defense is going to present quite a bit of evidence and expert opinion about sounds - gunshots and screams. I am really looking forward to that.

Hi Minor,

Good to hear from you.

The break in the trial seems to be taking forever so I've just been keeping my memory refreshed revisiting the testimonies.

I found Dr Stipp to be the only state witness showing any kind of willingness to be open-minded about the case.

Burger and Johnson have clearly decided on OP's guilt prior to the bail hearing and tailored parts of their statements and testimony accordingly.

When Roux asked Ms Burger why OP would have behaved in a specific manner if he had intentionally killed Reeva, her response was...'you should be putting that question to OP'. The mannerism clearly showed contempt towards OP. All Burger and Johnson were required to do was provide recollection as it was that morning, and answer the questions. Their inability to do this, the line for line similarities in written statements, and the tendency to try anything other than to give a clear answer showed all the characteristics of witnesses that were anything but impartial.

It was rather telling that both Charl Johnson and Ms Burger expressed that they were very private people and reluctant to get involved, yet Mr Johnson wasted no time following the case on the news that afternoon, climbing onto his roof with a camera, checking how close OP's house was, uploading a photograph to Google Earth and creating a scale to find the approximate distance from OP's house to his own.

Yes, Steve I agree. Lets hope the Judge sees the same indicators.

She should. She should be viewing the evidence from the perspective of "Innocent until proven guilty"

I really do think you see the trial (especially on subsequent viewings) quite differently from those who have a perspective of "guilty" from the outset. With that view it seems people accept negatives at face value and dismiss the simplest explanation in favour of any contrived interpretation.

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

A couple of things I overlooked until reviewing the testimonies again :-

The Burger/Johnson bedroom

I'd originally thought Michelle Burger was lay in bed and positioned near the balcony when she heard the noises that morning, similar to the picture of the layout in OP's house.
This does not appear to be the case as Mr Johnson indicated in the testimony that the bed is 30ft from the balcony.
That's quite a large bedroom, with the bed presumably at the end of the room furthest away from the balcony.

Ms Burger's previous shooting experience.

Michelle Burger claimed to be able to recognise gunshots due to her previous shooting experience at the 'range'.
It appears she must have been shooting with golf clubs instead of guns, as on both occasions she refers to it as a 'driving range'.

I think we can safely assume that Ms Burger hasn't heard very many gunshots in her lifetime.

I have never considered the Burger evidence of worthy note, I think the prosecution are grabbing at what little straws they have.

In fact, I don't think any of the State witnesses were worthy of a position in the witness box.

The Judge has taken the time out to go over the documents and several thousand words over the two week break - let's hope the others do the same as she guided them to do.

_________________
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

Hi wroughead.

I have to disagree

I think the State witnesses were Ok, even good, apart from the fact that they were allowed to speculate rather than just testify to what the saw and heard. The defence, as well as the Prosecution do need evidence as to the sounds of shots, and the bat, and even the screams. Without that then any old "version" even the State version would be as good as any other.
IMO... Since OP's version is essentially true, then the more evidence the better. Each detail that fits OP's version is another block in the circumstantial evidence case.

I do think OP's version is essentially true. He is no doubt choosing his words carefully and the odd detail is tailored to suit his position... but I think that is understandable with his life on the line. Total recall is not the norm for human witnesses, and testifying in support of your own freedom (life) is quite different from posting speculation at a forum in hindsight, about matters people are not involved in personally, nor have any real knowledge or insight into.

I do agree that the Judge said she would review documents etc. She does have quite a daunting task ahead of her. I think her suggestion that the attorneys do the same was an attempt to cut down on the time they will request (need) to review the evidence and produce a closing argument (case). I am not sure they will do that. Pulling the finger out and getting on with things does does not seem to be the SA way

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

I have not followed why there is debate about when Reeva might have opened the bathroom window, and flushed the toilet, and I may have "missed the point", but.....
Off the top of my head, my guess is that Reeva entered the bathroom, found it to be hot and muggy (away from the relative cool of the bedroom with fans and window open) and opened the bathroom window BEFORE entering the toilet. I don't see a problem with OP's version at all? I am not sure she ever did flush the toilet? Is that a point ever raised? But if she did, then it was a little later as OP was alerted and moving towards the bathroom. It was then that she shut (and locked) the toilet door it seems.

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

I think it is perfectly understandable that she opened the bathroom window because it was hot and stuffy - with all the talk of home invasions, burglaries and the like, if I lived in SA I wouldn't be opening windows, and leaving ladders which are high enough to reach a balcony and then into a room. I would have to make sure stuff like that was locked away.

But that's probably the neurotic side of my brain working.

It makes you think in this particular case, I'm glad they don't have the death penalty in SA

_________________
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

Support growing for Oscar Pistorius
geebee2 GroundReport
Posted: 04/28/2014



...more at link
http://groundreport.com/support-growing ... pistorius/

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

I know that you have been re-listening to the ear witness testimony, as I have. It is a whole different experience listening to them now that we have heard so much additional evidence.

Dr Stipp is reliable IMO. There are aspects that he may have mistaken but he reported what he observed without too much of his own interpretation - and was certainly willing to consider other possibilities when presented with other evidence.

It struck me also how many times Johnson talked about following the case in the media and talking to various people (gossiping is how I perceive it). I think they didn't want to be involved until they heard the bail application hearing and realized the state had no case - then they decided to be heroes and make a case against OP, having their lawyer communicate directly with Nel. These two were very biased witnesses. I keep seeing comments that suggest that they are reliable because they have nothing to gain from lying or embellishing - but that's just silly. It is commonplace for people to be less than truthful on the stand when they have a strong opinion about what the outcome of the trial should be.

There were parts of the Burger/Johnson testimony that is helpful to the defense though. 1) It was established that both thought it was a house break and assault, despite the high security in the estate. It's not like they thought -"we are in such a safe estate, with security, high walls and controlled access; there's no way an intruder could break in someone's house and attack the occupants." 2) Neither thought it could have been a domestic violence incident because they heard both a woman and a man screaming for help (or so they believe). Hearing a man scream for help right before he shoots his girlfriend makes no sense (recall they believe the bangs they heard were "definitely" gunshots and not cricket bat). 3) It's got to be close to impossible for them to have heard Reeva screaming in a closed bathroom cubicle at the distance they were.

PART 1 of 10


As most of you know, I have never waivered in my belief that this charge should never have been brought and that Oscar Pistorius is not guilty of a premeditated murder of the girl who had been his girlfriend for 3 months. A girl who brings him a card on Valentines Day that says "today is a good day to tell you that I love you." And I'm still not waivering.

The prosecution would have you believe Oscar trapped her like a helpless animal that night.

On the day of February 12th, prior to her coming to spend the night with him, Reeva texts him in the morning that her old boyfriend Warren would like to have coffee with her, but she can do that another day. Even though she's willing to forego meeting him, and it's in her text, Oscar tells her to go and spend time with Warren before she comes to spend the night with him. Reeva then came and spent the night of the 12th with Oscar. This is a jealous and controlling guy? This is a guy whose mainspring on his brain is going to come loose and he's going to go mental? Over what? She was head over heels for him and he doesn't even mind if she visits her old boyfriend. Let's get real here.

Then did anybody put 2 and 2 together and stop to think that Reeva was there by herself after spending the night of the 12th with him? Oscar left to go to meetings the next morning. Reeva was there alone on February 13th. At 10:08 AM she's sending him a text wishing him good luck in his meeting. As far as Oscar knew, Reeva was going back to Johannesburg that day.

But then at 12:12 she sends him a text message saying "I hope you don't mind that I CAME BACK to the house to work a bit and do some washing." Do you know what that means? That means she had left the house but returned. It's possible she even went out more than once to buy the Valentines gift for him and possibly even did some grocery shopping for their dinner because we know another text asks Oscar if she can cook dinner for him. But we do know positively she left at least once and returned proven by her own text message.

When she left, do you think she left the doors to the house totally unlocked ? With the staggering statistics of crime and break ins all around that area? Do you think she would go and leave Oscar's place open for anybody to walk in? Do you think Oscar would leave her there and she would have no way to lock the house? With the strange locks in that house, the front door may have even required a key to get out. But we know one thing for sure, when she returned, she certainly had to get back in. How did she do that? Did she cross her arms in front of her and blink her way in like Barbara Eden on I Dream of Jeannie? Did she levitate herself up onto the balcony? The balcony doors were probably even locked. Did she use one of the ladders outside, put it up against the building and crawl in someplace? That's ludicrous. And that's why it's all hogwash about her ever being restrained from leaving that house that night or any other time. Or for that matter, going in or out whenever she wanted.

PART 2 of 10





There is no doubt in my mind that Reeva had free access to that house to come and go any time she pleased. She was his girlfriend. They were going to be moving to a new house together shortly and she was going to decorate it. I bet there were many times she was at that villa when he was away and I wouldn't be surprised she even had her own set of keys. I contend she knew how to arm and disarm the alarm and probably even had a garage remote. To think otherwise is nonsense. That's why she was able to go back and wash clothes at his house. We absolutely know she did by her own text message.

The female assessor assisting Judge Masipa reasoned the same thing. She took a shortcut right to that key fact demolishing the heart of the State's case. One of the only questions she asked when she questioned Pistorius, "did Reeva have access to the alarm remote?" She asked only two questions and this was one of them. Why did she focus immediately and solely on that after almost 8 days of a badgering prosecutor relentlessly assaulting practically everything Pistorius said? Even the most vengefull lynch-ready Pistorius hater should be able to figure that out. She wanted to know if Reeva had access to the alarm remote so she could go downstairs to have something to eat while Oscar was sleeping. Common sense had already told her that she would. She just wanted to hear Oscar confirm it for the record. And of course, that is very probably exactly what Reeva did and the assessor as sharp as she was, zeroed right in on that.

BAM!! There goes the whole foundation of the case that Nel has to have, to even vaguely suggest that there was this phantom argument he would have you believe was deserving of a swat team response. This intense, searing---stark raving crazy Oscar chasing Reeva around the house---mythical lead-up-to-murder, phantom argument.

Anyone with a thinking brain should be able to logically conclude that if Reeva was still up and working on her iPad at 3 AM after Oscar nodded off at approximately somewhere around 10 PM as he says, it is more than feasible that she did go down to the kitchen and get a vegetable snack or got herself something to eat. How would Oscar know what she did if he was sleeping? It would have been five hours since he went to sleep and EIGHT hours since they had eaten dinner. It's not logical she might be a little hungry after that much time?

The State didn't even come close to proving she couldn't have done that. And the assessor went right to that critical point like a laser. Poof, there goes the value of Saayman's testimony about the stomach contents and the gastric emptying normal ranges for determining when a murder victim last ate and the prosecution's pitiful attempt to use this as the nexus for the reason that she was up at 1 AM.

PART 3 of 10




The State is bold enough to say this was because of a red hot torrid argument Reeva was having with Oscar? Apparently being so threatened that she was in a panic to leave? Really? This is why she was eating at 1 AM because she wanted to have a little dinner while she was having this massive argument? An argument so massive it led to her being chased into the toilet because she was being terrorized with a big black gun? Literally in fear for her life? Really? What was she doing, munching on a carrot while she was telling Oscar how much she hated him? Or vice versa?

Oh, and good giggly wiggly let me not forget this...where the hell was the food stored in the bedroom that she was eating? Was there a refrigerator in there? Was there silverware? Remember, she was supposed to be locked in the bedroom according to the prosecution. So how did she get what she was eating? Did the vegetable goodies and cheese protein she ate just materialize out of nowhere? Where were the plates or leftovers in the bedroom? Where was a fork or knife to show any indication of eating?

And if she was able to get to the kitchen for the food, and they were arguing downstairs, then she never WAS locked in the bedroom was she. So now how are you going to justify it--are you going to tell me Oscar was chasing her all over the house? Upstairs--downstairs? If they were downstairs arguing, I hope you're not going to tell me he wouldn't be wearing his prosthetics there. Just going down the steps on his stumps, he would end up falling down the stairs like a slinky. And on the tile floors, he'd be slipping and sliding around like a drunk on roller skates.

So without question he'd be wearing his prosthetics downstairs. And of course downstairs is where Reeva has access to all kinds of knives in the kitchen. But Reeva is too timid to grab one of those even though Oscar is apparently turned into a totally out-of-control psycho. So instead she runs up the stairs rather than out the front door or into the garage and out the garage door. Oscar right behind her in hot pursuit swearing at her, threatening her. Reeva terrified now, runs for refuge into the bedroom. He follows her, locks the door so she can't get out. Finally she's trapped.

PART 4 of 10




Or wait the other scenario...she manages to just get in and is able to lock the door. She locks the door with the key which is the only way it locks. So now even though she HAS to have the key at this point, she somehow loses it or doesn't take it out of the door so Oscar wouldn't be able to get it or so that she at least would be able to run out of the bedroom again. This law graduate wouldn't have sense enough to do that.

So anyway now the door is locked and he's really furious. So furious he somehow breaks the door by kicking it or body charging it, or who knows what he may have used to batter it and break through it, or jimmy the lock or latch with some kind of tool until it opened. Or possibly he shot through the door. Of course, that would have to be with a smaller gun he got from someplace or the hole size wouldn't match and there wasn't any bullet recovered anywhere to show he did that.

But anyway, it causes all the damage shown on the photos the prosecution introduced as exhibits that nobody testified about as to how recent the damage was, or even remotely proving through an evidence expert that Oscar broke the door that night. We just have to believe Nel that it had to be, because he's the prosecutor and he don't need trivialities like proof. There was the horrendous argument and Oscar needed to kill Reeva. How could he get at her if he didn't break the door? That would be stupid. Just take his word for it. When the State says he did, he did. Didn't you see the broken window downstairs? This was an insane Oscar on a mission to kill Reeva. Even though the new window replacement had been ordered showing the damage not even vaguely related to that night, just ignore that. Was all part of his plan. He put the ladders out there too and broke the toilet light.

The important thing in either scenario she's now in the bedroom and so is he. Aha, she's finally trapped. Reeva has only one place left to go. Knowing she may suffer a fate of great bodily injury or even worse because this is a totally off the rails deranged Oscar, she races into the bathroom, throws the bathroom window open, goes into the toilet, locks the door with the key praying she can calm him down by talking to him through the locked toilet door--but all the while screaming with "blood curdling" screams that neighbors two football fields away can hear.

So what does Pistorius do? Which according to the prosecution he has to do then? Absolutely has to? He takes OFF his prosthetics, before he waddles like a goose into the bathroom and pumps four 9 milimeter hollow point bullets into the toilet door? Knowing he can't possibly miss her? But to be extra sure her brain resembles that watermelon, he listens for her screams to estimate where she is and spreads his shot pattern so he's infinitely sure he's shooting where she has to be? Yes!! Thank God that damn woman is finally dead. She's got to be. I don't hear those screams now. Whew, boy my ears are ringing too--can't hear a thing But soon as that stops, I can finally call Stander, break down the toilet door with my cricket bat and make this all look like an accident. Oh yeah I gotta call Netcare too.

Just how preposterous do I have to make this?

PART 5 of 10



If that's not enough and this battle royal was in the bedroom, why was there not one single thing knocked over or disturbed in the bedroom? Signs of an argument--a lamp knocked over, a stereo speaker turned askew, things strewn about, items on the floor, something smashed---at least something somewhere. After all, there was this virulent, vitriolic huge argument, with Oscar allegedly spewing vile, hate-filled invectives at Reeva telling her to get the f-ck out of his house. Nel said so and absolutely insists on it.

But no. Everything was in its place in the bedroom. Even the overnight bags and the toiletry case and all the things on the stereo and shelves were neatly in place as were the trophy displays and a display case full of sunglasses. The sandals by the bed were even undisturbed, placed perfectly next to each other side by side. There were no signs of what you would expect anywhere, because there never was any reason for things to show signs of heated emotions that night.

The argument is all one total big load of bs. There never was no fight. There never was no "row." Reeva went downstairs while Oscar was sleeping and had some of the leftover vegetable stir fry from the dinner they had at 7:00. She came back up, was laying in bed working on her computer when Oscar woke up. That's why there were no visible signs of eating in the bedroom, that's why the State can't prove there was an argument or when it started, or what caused it. And that's why the undigested vegetable matter was in her stomach.

PART 6 of 10


The real back asswards logic that anybody would have to employ who is taken in by this fairy tale of Nel and his gaggle of goop pedlars trying to turn this accidental shooting into a cold blooded murder, should stand out to you like the Empire State building on the Sahara Desert.

Is anybody going to try to tell me--and now you really have to think about this and picture it--Oscar was on his stumps when he shot at the door. There is NO disputing that. No getting around it. It is absolute fact and you're stuck with it. Even the prosecution has conceded that Pistorius was on his stumps when he fired at the door. That means that he had to GET to the bathroom. No way around that either. He had to waddle his way into the bathroom from the bedroom on his stumps. And you're going to tell me, that Reeva would be terrified of this? She could have kicked him in the nuts, kicked him in the head, ran circles around him, sprayed his eyes with hairspray, or maybe even had mace in her purse.

She could have charged at him like a linebacker and flattened him like a frisbee. There was a baseball bat standing right by the bedroom door. PLUS she had the cricket bat right there she could have used on him. One good roundhouse swing with that and his head would have ended up out on the lawn. She had an air rifle only feet away. She could have shot him with that twenty times in his face. Literally anything in the bedroom could have served as a weapon. And this is assuming she wasn't able to get out of the bedroom, which is a crock in itself.

It would be like an adult versus a little four year old. And even a child would have more mobility than Pistorius had on his stumps. For Christ sake, his dog could knock him over. And Reeva had to run in the toilet like a terrified little baby deer? She practiced yoga and was about as athletic as you could get. Can you just picture Oscar fluttering along like a duck yelling at her? Balancing himself against the walls? It would be material for a comedy sketch. She could have done a Bruce Lee on him and they would have been taking him to the hospital---gun, or no gun. She could have got around behind him and choked him with something. He would have bruises, bumps, cuts, lacerations, black eyes. It's so ludicrous, it boggles the mind that everybody can't see that.

She could have run out on the balcony and screamed. Do you think Oscar would have shot her there? She could have threw one or both of his prosthetics into the trees from the balcony or out the bathroom window. What is he going to do now? She could have even whacked him with one of those. You really think Reeva was that incapable of any action WHATSOEVER ? This woman who was already familiar with previous domestic violence and would be more attuned to it than anybody? Very familiar herself with guns? This woman who was a law graduate wouldn't have sense enough to fight back a little ? Even knowing she might be killed?

The bedroom door lock was so insecure that it had to be held shut by the cricket bat. You're really going to tell me she couldn't get out of the bedroom? And if you STILL need it to be even more ridiculous, she had a phone. She had more than enough time to dial police emergency just in the time it would take him to get from the bedroom to the bathroom. But no call made whatsoever. The absurdity just goes on and on.

There was no fight and there was no argument. Period.

PART 7 of 10


Then the noises. Are the Burgers going to tell me they ever heard a cricket bat hitting a door? How the hell would they know what that sounded like? It's not like they would wake up at 3 AM and say "boy, you know that sounded just like a cricket bat breaking a door." If they had said that, I would have doubted their IQ score could be above 40. Nobody would relate that sound to a cricket bat. I doubt 1% of the world's population ever had the opportunity to hear a cricket bat hitting a door prior to this trial. You have a mental bank of references that you are familiar with and automatically associate things with. The only thing remotely sounding like gunshots would be firecrackers or a car backfiring in our normal mental associations of that bang sound.

But yet it absolutely DOES sound like a gun. So much so, that the range master thought Dixon had fired the gun already without his go ahead, when all Dixon had really done was strike the bottom of the door with a cricket bat for the first part of their test. If that doesn't validate that the two sounds are comparable, I don't know what does. This guy runs the shooting range for Christ sake. If anybody should know gunshots, he should. I believe he may even be called as a witness. Then how coincidental would it have to be that Pistorius would know that these two things sounded alike and incorporate that into his brilliant plan as a "cover up" moments after this so-called "murder" of his girlfriend of 3 months, so that he could account for more bang sounds and confuse everybody. Pu-lease.

I will submit what I also believe is the explanation to another conundrum in this case. 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 to me what they heard.

Both voices were Pistorius. Reeva was killed shortly after 3 AM. These were the actual gunshots at about 3:10. After Oscar was able to ascertain what had happened and that he had just shot Reeva, his brain went on autopilot and he was functioning on pure adrenaline. He shrieked in the high decibel screaming range and would alternately revert briefly to his normal lower pitched voice range, before shrieking again--almost as if he was talking with himself, comprehending what he was seeing.

Both voices would be extraordinarily emotional but tonal quality would be noticeably different and sound like two different people. It's crucial to note, nobody heard male and female voices at the same time. They heard a female and then a male, or the opposite. You may also recall nobody heard actual words they could make out-- they just heard screaming or crying.

An example might be similar to a woman who saw her child gunned down right in front of her knowing she maybe could have done something to prevent it. But she was now helpless and it was too late, her child was dead. The reaction would be automatic and involuntary. The after-effect with Pistorius would be even more distressed because he himself had caused the killing. The brain would be taking charge and activating his synapses. He wouldn't even have any idea he was hysterical.