Why is it so ludicrous that someone might call out in different pitches? Screaming in fear and horror and panic at not knowing if his girlfriend was alive, and crying out in despair and guilt at the realisation this was his fault? The first, more frantic and pressured - likely perhaps to be higher pitched than the lower, more sorrowful cry of someone who had caused a tragedy.
Of course in reality
The first, more frantic and pressured when he grasped what he had done in a blind rage followed by a lower sorrowful pitch when he realised that it could mean imprisonment and the loss of his sponsors.
…then he saw the open window and a plan quickly followed…
The first, more frantic and pressured when he grasped what he had done in a blind rage followed by a lower sorrowful pitch when he realised that it could mean imprisonment and the loss of his sponsors.
…then he saw the open window and a plan quickly followed…
Well at least you appear to agree that alternative pitches by one person are possible!
Oscar Trial Panel with Judge Greenland - discussion of the screams - after Mrs Burger, Johnson and Stipps testified in Court , and discussion of Dr Lin's testimony (re: sound) for the Defence
I don't see why any of this is relevant, Jeremy. OP thought someone had come in through the window, he says. Is there any reason that he couldn't have believed that was possible? No. Did the police find the window open? Yes. So all this stuff about the air con and whether there are other possible explanations for an open window don't matter one iota.
Pink, we've all created at some point a 'through draft' on a hot humid night. It must have been acceptable in such a secure estate to open windows through the house to do so. It would explain the intermingling voices and screams carried through the neighbourhood in such conditions, hence op running to the balcony after the shots to ascertain if any other lights were switched on as testified by Dr. Stipp.
Pink, we've all created at some point a 'through draft' on a hot humid night. It must have been acceptable in such a secure estate to open windows through the house to do so. It would explain the intermingling voices and screams carried through the neighbourhood in such conditions, hence op running to the balcony after the shots to ascertain if any other lights were switched on as testified by Dr. Stipp.
But surely it was Masipa who took the ‘curate's egg’ approach as this describes something that is partly bad, but it can be argued has some redeeming features.
In other words I think he is a liar but I fancy some bits of his evidence might possibly be true.
I've found a VT that I thought was an excellent analysis of OP that I've put up before during the trial, it's worth seeing again
Clinical Psychologist - expert on Trauma - explains why, in his opinion, OP was not telling the truth
I meant that Nel's complaints about multiple defences were crap.
It seems to have given the impression that an accused is only "allowed" one defence. They can of course have more than one but usually only one cogent defence is accepted (or not!)
OP got very confused with what his Defence was going to be, from Day 1 , evident here in how he explained why he shot at the door...:...shot out of fear, shot by accident, .
Well at least you appear to agree that alternative pitches by one person are possible!
I said alternate, not alternative. Dr Stipp heard two voices intermingled.
Two voices alternating and overlapping. Not one person making utterances in one pitch, then changing to another pitch.
OP got very confused with what his Defence was going to be, from Day 1 , evident here in how he explained why he shot at the door...:...shot out of fear, shot by accident, .
I said alternate, not alternative. Dr Stipp heard two voices intermingled.
Two voices alternating and overlapping. Not one person making utterances in one pitch, then changing to another pitch.
"intermingled" is open to interpretation. Overlapping or simultaneous would have meant that it was two voices together.
Anyway his wife was much more specific. (Ol' curtain twitcher)
He didn't get confused at all. His story stayed the same despite Nel's attempts to get him off the point of the needle.
The noise caused him to fire because he thought an intruder was coming out to attack him.
Forget his "defence" You have been brainwashed by Nel into believing he had to explain his defence. He did not. He just had to answer questions.
a bump in the night (as Judge Greenland puts it) isn't reason to go firing 4 shots through a closed door is it !!! he wasn't under attack, he couldn't see anyone, so he wasn't in ANY danger to his life whatsoever, mores the point.
OP was worried about the consequences of how he worded his answers to Nel, - let's face it , it's not rocket science........ If he was telling the truth he'd just say why and how he fired at the door, but he didn't. Should have been pretty simple questions to answer i'd have thought , as i'm sure what he did that night he'd have played over and over and over in his head thousands of times - so why couldn't he just answer Nel with confidence and with one explanation ?
Roux was quick to interject and try counteract OP's blunder having given the Court two Defence claims.by telling the Judge what OP had 'meant', - I say liar liar pants on fire myself !
brainwashed :D:D Listen to that VT again Porky, listen to OP , it's there to see !!
I said alternate, not alternative. Dr Stipp heard two voices intermingled.
Two voices alternating and overlapping. Not one person making utterances in one pitch, then changing to another pitch.
when people argue, they often talk at the same time and try and shout the other down,- i'd describe that as two voices intermingled;-).
a bump in the night isn't reason to go firing 4 shots through a closed door is it !!! he wasn't under attack, he couldn't see anyone, so he wasn't in ANY danger to his life whatsoever, mores the point.
OP was worried about the consequences of how he worded his answers to Nel, - let's face it , it's not rocket science........ If he was telling the truth he'd just say why and how he fired at the door, but he didn't. Should have been pretty simple questions to answer i'd have thought , as i'm sure what he did that night he'd have played over and over and over in his head thousands of times - so why couldn't he just answer Nel with confidence and with one explanation ?
Roux was quick to interject and try counteract OP's blunder having given the Court two Defence claims.by telling the Judge what OP had 'meant', - I say liar liar pants on fire myself !
brainwashed :D:D Listen to that VT again Porky, listen to OP , it's there to see !!
I watched the VT. Ive watched it many times. You are quite definitely wrong. But thanks for putting it up there.
As a result of the carte blanche channel bit I also watched another one in which Greenland said that he hoped the defence had OP's boat head injury investigated as his son had a head injury which he recognised in OP's odd performance in cross examination. Purely by coincidence I was talking to a neurosurgeon this afternoon about the very same thing. He also commented on OP's performance. Spooky eh?
I watched the VT. Ive watched it many times. You are quite definitely wrong. But thanks for putting it up there.
As a result of the carte blanche channel bit I also watched another one in which Greenland said that he hoped the defence had OP's boat head injury investigated as his son had a head injury which he recognised in OP's odd performance in cross examination. Purely by coincidence I was talking to a neurosurgeon this afternoon about the very same thing. He also commented on OP's performance. Spooky eh?
funny then how OP's Defence didn't pick up on this and have OP assessed by a neurosurgeon .........if it could have explained his evasiveness in answering Nel's questions..........but they didn't. They also tried to use Dr Vorster's diagnosis of GAD to explain what OP did too to help affect his sentencing, but that didn't work either did it.,.............just sayin
"intermingled" is open to interpretation. Overlapping or simultaneous would have meant that it was two voices together.
Anyway his wife was much more specific. (Ol' curtain twitcher)
The 'unflappable' Mrs Stipp I'll have you know...........................:p:D
Incredible under the cross-examination of Roux - she wasn't having any of his nonsense !
funny then how OP's Defence didn't pick up on this and have OP assessed by a neurosurgeon .........if it could have explained his evasiveness in answering Nel's questions..........but they didn't. They also tried to use Dr Vorster's diagnosis of GAD to explain what OP did too to help affect his sentencing, but that didn't work either did it.,.............just sayin
Oh I don't think there's anything to it. It was just the coincidence that I came across all those legal panel programmes via your link and happened to pick that particular one.
Oh I don't think there's anything to it. It was just the coincidence that I came across all those legal panel programmes via your link and happened to pick that particular one.
yes, true - as there's a few of them that come up you could have picked instead
Aside from OP........another witness during the Trial who failed to answer questions put to them by Nel during cross-examination..........one of the Defence's Expert non-expert witnesses comes to mind........
He didn't get confused at all. His story stayed the same despite Nel's attempts to get him off the point of the needle.
The noise caused him to fire because he thought an intruder was coming out to attack him.
Forget his "defence" You have been brainwashed by Nel into believing he had to explain his defence. He did not. He just had to answer questions.
Of course he had to answer questions, but it was his answers to those questions that confused his defence as you well know.
Initially it was claimed he acted in putative self-defence but under cross examination he said he didn’t fire to kill anyone but just fired when he heard a noise. So at that point his defence changed from putative self-defence to an involuntary action.
Just one example of his version changing on the hoof
Of course he had to answer questions, but it was his answers to those questions that confused his defence as you well know.
Initially it was claimed he acted in putative self-defence but under cross examination he said he didn’t fire to kill anyone but just fired when he heard a noise. So at that point his defence changed from putative self-defence to an involuntary action.
Just one example of his version changing on the hoof
I remember Roux then saying - at the time of the referral I think - "Our defence is not one of involuntariness." This was right after Oscar had incredulously claimed that he had fired four bullets without thought, before he even knew he had fired. It was such a mess of a defence. I wonder if Oscar's self-perception as someone bearing the mantle of role model for the disabled and upstanding Christian made it impossible for him to actually admit to himself and to the court, "I shot to kill." As if he always wanted to claim total innocence, and magnanimously accept the ruling of the court in terms of "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" - or, as Uncle Arnold put it, "repay society." He was never able to put up his hand and say, "Actually, I was the bad guy in all of this."
I watched the VT. Ive watched it many times. You are quite definitely wrong. But thanks for putting it up there.
As a result of the carte blanche channel bit I also watched another one in which Greenland said that he hoped the defence had OP's boat head injury investigated as his son had a head injury which he recognised in OP's odd performance in cross examination. Purely by coincidence I was talking to a neurosurgeon this afternoon about the very same thing. He also commented on OP's performance. Spooky eh?
Even spookier is that a neurosurgeon talking about an old head injury causing problems (not OP's) was the main storyline introduced to a soap opera last evening too.
This is a programme in which some of the evidence was tested.
They carried out a sound test where a recording of a man and a woman arguing was played loudly and the observers tried to hear anything from distances starting at 300m.
Interesting that nothing could be heard until 50m.
At 100m which is within the distance EVDM said she could hear a woman arguing (not screaming) there was nothing heard.
Even spookier is that a neurosurgeon talking about an old head injury causing problems (not OP's) was the main storyline introduced to a soap opera last evening too.
This is a programme in which some of the evidence was tested.
They carried out a sound test where a recording of a man and a woman arguing was played loudly and the observers tried to hear anything from distances starting at 300m.
Interesting that nothing could be heard until 50m.
At 100m which is within the distance EVDM said she could hear a woman arguing (not screaming) there was nothing heard.
So what are you suggesting Porky that based on a media type ‘reconstruction’ that cannot replicate many of the pertinent factors that EVDM came to court and made it all up, that she lied?
Comments
Of course in reality
The first, more frantic and pressured when he grasped what he had done in a blind rage followed by a lower sorrowful pitch when he realised that it could mean imprisonment and the loss of his sponsors.
…then he saw the open window and a plan quickly followed…
Well at least you appear to agree that alternative pitches by one person are possible!
Sometimes I feel the need to humour those who have yet to see the light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mCULJUdk_k
Old VT, but worth listening to this again
Pink, we've all created at some point a 'through draft' on a hot humid night. It must have been acceptable in such a secure estate to open windows through the house to do so. It would explain the intermingling voices and screams carried through the neighbourhood in such conditions, hence op running to the balcony after the shots to ascertain if any other lights were switched on as testified by Dr. Stipp.
It's possible.
Clinical Psychologist - expert on Trauma - explains why, in his opinion, OP was not telling the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNKjEYIC14k
After seven days of OP's testimony - analysis of OP's emotion while on the Stand :
OP got very confused with what his Defence was going to be, from Day 1 , evident here in how he explained why he shot at the door...:...shot out of fear, shot by accident, .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3az9ltZ0Lo.
I said alternate, not alternative. Dr Stipp heard two voices intermingled.
Two voices alternating and overlapping. Not one person making utterances in one pitch, then changing to another pitch.
He didn't get confused at all. His story stayed the same despite Nel's attempts to get him off the point of the needle.
The noise caused him to fire because he thought an intruder was coming out to attack him.
Forget his "defence" You have been brainwashed by Nel into believing he had to explain his defence. He did not. He just had to answer questions.
"intermingled" is open to interpretation. Overlapping or simultaneous would have meant that it was two voices together.
Anyway his wife was much more specific. (Ol' curtain twitcher)
OP was worried about the consequences of how he worded his answers to Nel, - let's face it , it's not rocket science........ If he was telling the truth he'd just say why and how he fired at the door, but he didn't. Should have been pretty simple questions to answer i'd have thought , as i'm sure what he did that night he'd have played over and over and over in his head thousands of times - so why couldn't he just answer Nel with confidence and with one explanation ?
Roux was quick to interject and try counteract OP's blunder having given the Court two Defence claims.by telling the Judge what OP had 'meant', - I say liar liar pants on fire myself !
brainwashed
I watched the VT. Ive watched it many times. You are quite definitely wrong. But thanks for putting it up there.
As a result of the carte blanche channel bit I also watched another one in which Greenland said that he hoped the defence had OP's boat head injury investigated as his son had a head injury which he recognised in OP's odd performance in cross examination. Purely by coincidence I was talking to a neurosurgeon this afternoon about the very same thing. He also commented on OP's performance. Spooky eh?
Incredible under the cross-examination of Roux - she wasn't having any of his nonsense !
Oh I don't think there's anything to it. It was just the coincidence that I came across all those legal panel programmes via your link and happened to pick that particular one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa2G5zwoMns
Of course he had to answer questions, but it was his answers to those questions that confused his defence as you well know.
Initially it was claimed he acted in putative self-defence but under cross examination he said he didn’t fire to kill anyone but just fired when he heard a noise. So at that point his defence changed from putative self-defence to an involuntary action.
Just one example of his version changing on the hoof
I remember Roux then saying - at the time of the referral I think - "Our defence is not one of involuntariness." This was right after Oscar had incredulously claimed that he had fired four bullets without thought, before he even knew he had fired. It was such a mess of a defence. I wonder if Oscar's self-perception as someone bearing the mantle of role model for the disabled and upstanding Christian made it impossible for him to actually admit to himself and to the court, "I shot to kill." As if he always wanted to claim total innocence, and magnanimously accept the ruling of the court in terms of "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" - or, as Uncle Arnold put it, "repay society." He was never able to put up his hand and say, "Actually, I was the bad guy in all of this."
Even spookier is that a neurosurgeon talking about an old head injury causing problems (not OP's) was the main storyline introduced to a soap opera last evening too.
They carried out a sound test where a recording of a man and a woman arguing was played loudly and the observers tried to hear anything from distances starting at 300m.
Interesting that nothing could be heard until 50m.
At 100m which is within the distance EVDM said she could hear a woman arguing (not screaming) there was nothing heard.
The sound test starts at 12.07 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noVdB2WP2DE
Really? Which one?
So what are you suggesting Porky that based on a media type ‘reconstruction’ that cannot replicate many of the pertinent factors that EVDM came to court and made it all up, that she lied?