Scream tests were always going to be fraught with danger for both sides.
Its subjective and the listener would not have just been awoken from sleep or be totally unaware of what was going to occur.
OP said he had never screamed like that before and given the extremely unusual situation described that is perfectly understandable.
I don't think a demonstration is a deal breaker. The defence can claim he could be mistaken for a woman and leave the court to infer this may be reasonably possible based on his obviously higher pitched voice and Mrs VDM evidence.
If your own experience is lacking then there's plenty of clips on YT of men both talking, crying out and screaming just like women, or at least in a way that could be mistaken for as much under the conditions of that night. It's clearly not impossible.
The scream test was mentioned more than once as going to be introduced into evidence which in fact never happened. The only reason that could be inferred from that is that it wouldn't have proved the point at all. Why else would the DT not use it?
I have lots of experience of many things so won't resort to YT but if, as stated in court, there was a recording proving the fact OP screams like a woman then playing it to the Court would surely have been an obvious move.
It is easy to fall into the trap as some people seem to have done in thinking that the window actually made a noise.
Of course in reality it is a convenient construction in Pistorius’ head when he saw the open window after killing Reeva.
Such an obvious train of thought……
Shite what have I done – this could land me in jail with no sponsorship money – what shall I do – ah the window is open – intruders, yes that’s it, an intruder everyone in SA would believe I thought it was an intruder – now I must remember to be remorseful in bucket loads and praying to God will look good.
Pistorius then picks up phone to ring a friend not phone for an ambulance of course!
No doubt there was huge panic Jeremy.
I think there could have been a whole different twist if Dr Stipp had not turned up. Although, I think even the Standers were appalled at OP's suggestion to take RS to hospital in the state she was in.
BIB. The problem here is, there was no intruder and therefore, no noise came from a sliding window.
You can describe what noise windows like this might make if opened but there was no one there to do that if RS was in the toilet and OP was putting a pair of jeans over a light.
Your explaining a situation as if there was an intruder which there was not.
So, where does that leave OP's version?
Do you understand what OP's version actually is, booty?
I think there could have been a whole different twist if Dr Stipp had not turned up. Although, I think even the Standers were appalled at OP's suggestion to take RS to hospital in the state she was in.
To be fair to Pistorius it did look as if he was going to use bin bags and duct tape to wrap her up her partially amputated body before she was put in Standers' car. Of course her intended destination may or may not have been the hospital.
But as you say Dr Stipp foiled something that much was clear purely from Pistorius' venomous attitude towards him
He didn't have a solid defence though did he. He offered a " plethora of defences" and Masipa's decision on how to deal with them is subject to appeal. Had it been a solid defence no appeal would be allowed.
The "preferred defence" was negated by OP's own testimony which is very strange considering he had a year to practice and settle on a version.
His defence was always that he thought there was an intruder. That he also said that he fired without thinking raised another possible defence shouldn't matter. Looking at it logically, did the state prove he knew it was RS? No. Was his belief that it was an intruder reasonably possibly true? Yes. Did he shoot unintentionally - Masipa found this wasn't likely so rejected it. So what was left? That he did mean to shoot, and at an intruder. I don't quite know how else she was supposed to conclude once she'd decided that the state hadn't made it's case.
At this point, it's now legitimate to wonder whether it could be DE of an intruder. As I understand it, this is rejected if he believed he was acting in self-defence, even if he exceeded the bounds of what was acceptable self-defence and a reasonable person would have known this. So the most it could be was CH.
So doesn't everything flow from the decision to reject the state's case that he knew it was RS?
When did the defence state that RS opened the bathroom window?
As I said, I must have missed that.
Probably in OP's testimony though I don't remember now. I don't get what you thought the defence claim had caused the window moving noise if it wasn't RS?
Probably in OP's testimony though I don't remember now. I don't get what you thought the defence claim had caused the window moving noise if it wasn't RS?
Well, for a start I don't believe OP version. That being my case, I don't believe there ever was a noise.
As far as I'm aware, the defence left holes all over the place and did not fully explain OP's version and neither did OP IMO.
That's way there are so many unanswered questions. So much makes no sense.
Now we have OP could see what he was doing in the bathroom because it was not in darkness according to you. I don't think that fits in with OP's version somehow.
And it was RS who opened the bathroom window when for all anyone knows it was open day and night. Maybe even Frank opened it.
I have always said the state didn't have enough circumstantial evidence to make a murder charge stick.
I just don't say it very often as I don't like repeating myself in posts if I can help it.
I have never called OP a murderer as I don't know. Unless there is 100% proof or a confession I can't say for sure what happened. But I don't believe the intruder story.
I do like being a armchair detective and ask questions or throw out idea's for discussions.
I think there could be something in between that might have happened but that's just a feeling. And I think the OP enablers are destroying OP bit by bit and have caused him to be so hated, he'll never live it down.
And I feel it's these enablers who have effected his life personally and mentally which is rather sad.
The Steenkamp family are amazing even though heartbroken.
I don't however think OP understood RS or had the ability to understand her. Having said that, I do think he really liked her but because of his terror of shooting her, plus those who encourage him to get out of just about anything, he has made it much worse for himself looking to them for help.
I have wondered that too. But the problem is that there really are only 2 choices - he knew it was RS or he thought there was an intruder so there's not much in the way of a half way house.
So even Masipa got it wrong then? Copied from her judgement
" I now deal with the accused’s defence. A perusal of the evidence of the
accused shows a number of defences or apparent defences.
Why would the State mention it in the appeal document if it wasn't fact or are you implying that they are incorrect too?
Multiple defences might be a headache for the court but it shouldn't concern the accused. At the end of the day all the accused has to do is answer the questions put by the lawyers.
It's up to the defence to craft the defendants story into something easily digested by the average court.
In this case for whatever reason this did not happen. Whether it was Roux being unable to commit his client to a single defence because he was guilty or OP not co-operating with his own defence - deliberately or otherwise, we do not know.
The court must decide on guilt primarily but not exclusively on the evidence presented and the inferences drawn etc. But it has the power to reach it's decision using any legally relevant information.
If multiple defences causes a problem for you then imagine the defendant who choses to defend themselves. Chances are they may have a big difficulty with coming up with a single defence. Now OP has had the help of a top notch lawyer but has still not managed it. Does it mean he's guilty? Nope, it just creates more work for the court.
I have wondered that too. But the problem is that there really are only 2 choices - he knew it was RS or he thought there was an intruder so there's not much in the way of a half way house.
If I was asked to guess I would say that he truly believed there to be an intruder.
He heard that window and went for it with little or no regard for Reeva.
The remorse is genuine. I just don't think any of it was faked.
His defence was always that he thought there was an intruder. That he also said that he fired without thinking raised another possible defence shouldn't matter. Looking at it logically, did the state prove he knew it was RS? No. Was his belief that it was an intruder reasonably possibly true? Yes. Did he shoot unintentionally - Masipa found this wasn't likely so rejected it. So what was left? That he did mean to shoot, and at an intruder. I don't quite know how else she was supposed to conclude once she'd decided that the state hadn't made it's case.
At this point, it's now legitimate to wonder whether it could be DE of an intruder. As I understand it, this is rejected if he believed he was acting in self-defence, even if he exceeded the bounds of what was acceptable self-defence and a reasonable person would have known this. So the most it could be was CH.
So doesn't everything flow from the decision to reject the state's case that he knew it was RS?
No, I don't think it does all flow from a decision to reject the State's case of DD murder of Reeva.
The question of whether he believed he was acting in self-defence should have been discounted - Masipa's judgement states "Counsel for the state, correctly in my view, submitted that if the accused never intended to shoot anyone, he cannot rely on a defence of putative self defence." but then she went on to contradict this by creating a defence for him based on self defence. Again this is a vital part of the appeal which is why at this stage it must be in question and self-defence can't be taken as fact.
Without admitting that he shot at the pretend intruder deliberately he doesn't have the grounds to claim self-defence in SA law and the Court shouldn't have created them for him.
Maybe this seems clinical but the law is as it stands and unless I'm misunderstanding the law and appeal the Court had no right to decide that he didn't mean what he actually said, quite vehemently at times, under oath in his own defence, to make the outcome more favourable for him.
Multiple defences might be a headache for the court but it shouldn't concern the accused. At the end of the day all the accused has to do is answer the questions put by the lawyers.
It's up to the defence to craft the defendants story into something easily digested by the average court.
In this case for whatever reason this did not happen. Whether it was Roux being unable to commit his client to a single defence because he was guilty or OP not co-operating with his own defence - deliberately or otherwise, we do not know.
The court must decide on guilt primarily but not exclusively on the evidence presented and the inferences drawn etc. But it has the power to reach it's decision using any legally relevant information.
If multiple defences causes a problem for you then imagine the defendant who choses to defend themselves. Chances are they may have a big difficulty with coming up with a single defence. Now OP has had the help of a top notch lawyer but has still not managed it. Does it mean he's guilty? Nope, it just creates more work for the court.
How very strange that you give a seemingly logical explanation to my post which was in reply to this:
Originally Posted by porky42
All that multiple defences stuff is a load of crap.
Make your mind up please.
I would suggest that it's OP who will have a problem in the future caused by his multiple defences, not me.
His defence was always that he thought there was an intruder. That he also said that he fired without thinking raised another possible defence shouldn't matter. Looking at it logically, did the state prove he knew it was RS? No. Was his belief that it was an intruder reasonably possibly true? Yes. Did he shoot unintentionally - Masipa found this wasn't likely so rejected it. So what was left? That he did mean to shoot, and at an intruder. I don't quite know how else she was supposed to conclude once she'd decided that the state hadn't made it's case.
At this point, it's now legitimate to wonder whether it could be DE of an intruder. As I understand it, this is rejected if he believed he was acting in self-defence, even if he exceeded the bounds of what was acceptable self-defence and a reasonable person would have known this. So the most it could be was CH.
So doesn't everything flow from the decision to reject the state's case that he knew it was RS?
I disagree with the BIB. Witnesses testified to hearing the voices of two people coming from the Pistorius house. The court was told that only Pistorius and Reeva were in the house that night. Ergo, he must have known it was her.
I have wondered that too. But the problem is that there really are only 2 choices - he knew it was RS or he thought there was an intruder so there's not much in the way of a half way house.
Well, there is always the possibility they both lost their temper with each other.
No, I don't think it does all flow from a decision to reject the State's case of DD murder of Reeva.
The question of whether he believed he was acting in self-defence should have been discounted - Masipa's judgement states "Counsel for the state, correctly in my view, submitted that if the accused never intended to shoot anyone, he cannot rely on a defence of putative self defence." but then she went on to contradict this by creating a defence for him based on self defence. Again this is a vital part of the appeal which is why at this stage it must be in question and self-defence can't be taken as fact.
Without admitting that he shot at the pretend intruder deliberately he doesn't have the grounds to claim self-defence in SA law and the Court shouldn't have created them for him.
Maybe this seems clinical but the law is as it stands and unless I'm misunderstanding the law and appeal the Court had no right to decide that he didn't mean what he actually said, quite vehemently at times, under oath in his own defence, to make the outcome more favourable for him.
I don't see a problem with accepting parts of the accused's evidence and rejecting other parts. If the net result is that the court accepts that he did have a defence against murder then that's the way it goes. If you read court judgements, they do decide which bits of the evidence to accept and which bits to reject and conclude on guilt based on that judgement. If the evidence points to OP shooting intentionally at an intruder, even if that wasn't his full version, then that's where it goes.
Comments
The scream test was mentioned more than once as going to be introduced into evidence which in fact never happened. The only reason that could be inferred from that is that it wouldn't have proved the point at all. Why else would the DT not use it?
I have lots of experience of many things so won't resort to YT but if, as stated in court, there was a recording proving the fact OP screams like a woman then playing it to the Court would surely have been an obvious move.
Only tiresome to you as you know its most likely true and serves to undermine your defence of Pistorius and his murderous actions
So how come some people are now saying RS opened the bathroom window just because of what I said?
I've not heard anyone state this before???
BTW, I like your replies to all my questions especially the last one.
No doubt there was huge panic Jeremy.
I think there could have been a whole different twist if Dr Stipp had not turned up. Although, I think even the Standers were appalled at OP's suggestion to take RS to hospital in the state she was in.
BIB: Really??
So even Masipa got it wrong then? Copied from her judgement
" I now deal with the accused’s defence. A perusal of the evidence of the
accused shows a number of defences or apparent defences.
Why would the State mention it in the appeal document if it wasn't fact or are you implying that they are incorrect too?
Do you understand what OP's version actually is, booty?
That's always been the defence case. What did you think it was??
To be fair to Pistorius it did look as if he was going to use bin bags and duct tape to wrap her up her partially amputated body before she was put in Standers' car. Of course her intended destination may or may not have been the hospital.
But as you say Dr Stipp foiled something that much was clear purely from Pistorius' venomous attitude towards him
Yes.
Heard a noise, thought it was an intruder.
Trouble is, the intruder story is becoming more and more impossible as it's discussed.
Now we have RS opening the bathroom window. So with the blind up, open window with light coming in, it could not have been pitch dark.
This is a high security estate so must be well lit. Otherwise no one could see at night or the security would see nothing on their rounds.
When did the defence state that RS opened the bathroom window?
I must have missed that.
If that's the case, why did OP insist the whole place was in darkness?
He said the bedroom was in darkness, not the bathroom.
When did the defence state that RS opened the bathroom window?
As I said, I must have missed that.
His defence was always that he thought there was an intruder. That he also said that he fired without thinking raised another possible defence shouldn't matter. Looking at it logically, did the state prove he knew it was RS? No. Was his belief that it was an intruder reasonably possibly true? Yes. Did he shoot unintentionally - Masipa found this wasn't likely so rejected it. So what was left? That he did mean to shoot, and at an intruder. I don't quite know how else she was supposed to conclude once she'd decided that the state hadn't made it's case.
At this point, it's now legitimate to wonder whether it could be DE of an intruder. As I understand it, this is rejected if he believed he was acting in self-defence, even if he exceeded the bounds of what was acceptable self-defence and a reasonable person would have known this. So the most it could be was CH.
So doesn't everything flow from the decision to reject the state's case that he knew it was RS?
Probably in OP's testimony though I don't remember now. I don't get what you thought the defence claim had caused the window moving noise if it wasn't RS?
Well, for a start I don't believe OP version. That being my case, I don't believe there ever was a noise.
As far as I'm aware, the defence left holes all over the place and did not fully explain OP's version and neither did OP IMO.
That's way there are so many unanswered questions. So much makes no sense.
Now we have OP could see what he was doing in the bathroom because it was not in darkness according to you. I don't think that fits in with OP's version somehow.
And it was RS who opened the bathroom window when for all anyone knows it was open day and night. Maybe even Frank opened it.
I have wondered that too. But the problem is that there really are only 2 choices - he knew it was RS or he thought there was an intruder so there's not much in the way of a half way house.
Multiple defences might be a headache for the court but it shouldn't concern the accused. At the end of the day all the accused has to do is answer the questions put by the lawyers.
It's up to the defence to craft the defendants story into something easily digested by the average court.
In this case for whatever reason this did not happen. Whether it was Roux being unable to commit his client to a single defence because he was guilty or OP not co-operating with his own defence - deliberately or otherwise, we do not know.
The court must decide on guilt primarily but not exclusively on the evidence presented and the inferences drawn etc. But it has the power to reach it's decision using any legally relevant information.
If multiple defences causes a problem for you then imagine the defendant who choses to defend themselves. Chances are they may have a big difficulty with coming up with a single defence. Now OP has had the help of a top notch lawyer but has still not managed it. Does it mean he's guilty? Nope, it just creates more work for the court.
If I was asked to guess I would say that he truly believed there to be an intruder.
He heard that window and went for it with little or no regard for Reeva.
The remorse is genuine. I just don't think any of it was faked.
He murdered an intruder but Nel can't prove it.
No, I don't think it does all flow from a decision to reject the State's case of DD murder of Reeva.
The question of whether he believed he was acting in self-defence should have been discounted - Masipa's judgement states "Counsel for the state, correctly in my view, submitted that if the accused never intended to shoot anyone, he cannot rely on a defence of putative self defence." but then she went on to contradict this by creating a defence for him based on self defence. Again this is a vital part of the appeal which is why at this stage it must be in question and self-defence can't be taken as fact.
Without admitting that he shot at the pretend intruder deliberately he doesn't have the grounds to claim self-defence in SA law and the Court shouldn't have created them for him.
Maybe this seems clinical but the law is as it stands and unless I'm misunderstanding the law and appeal the Court had no right to decide that he didn't mean what he actually said, quite vehemently at times, under oath in his own defence, to make the outcome more favourable for him.
How very strange that you give a seemingly logical explanation to my post which was in reply to this:
Originally Posted by porky42
All that multiple defences stuff is a load of crap.
Make your mind up please.
I would suggest that it's OP who will have a problem in the future caused by his multiple defences, not me.
I disagree with the BIB. Witnesses testified to hearing the voices of two people coming from the Pistorius house. The court was told that only Pistorius and Reeva were in the house that night. Ergo, he must have known it was her.
Well, I don't know.
Is this another change of mind?
I thought you said you didn't believe OP's story???
Right then. Is that reply I just ^^^^^ typed what you want to hear?
What's your next plan of action?
porky's reply "I haven't changed my mind. OP murdered an intruder. Nel can't prove it. I don't believe OP when OP said he didn't murder anyone"
Boom Boom
Or, someone else is using porky's username. ;-):D
Well, there is always the possibility they both lost their temper with each other.
I don't see a problem with accepting parts of the accused's evidence and rejecting other parts. If the net result is that the court accepts that he did have a defence against murder then that's the way it goes. If you read court judgements, they do decide which bits of the evidence to accept and which bits to reject and conclude on guilt based on that judgement. If the evidence points to OP shooting intentionally at an intruder, even if that wasn't his full version, then that's where it goes.
That'd be him murdering RS deliberately. Isn't that just one possible variation on the state's case anyway?