Tussinelda schrieb:Denny Crane ist eine fiktive Person, die Texte wurden von Drehbuchschreibern geschrieben, das hier ständig zu posten, als wäre es von Bedeutung ist etwas merkwürdig, meiner Meinung nach, auch wenn ich Boston Legal liebe.
Das war das 2. Mal und passte aus meiner Sicht wunderbar in den Zusammenhang. Also, was soll daran bitte merkwürdig sein?
Roux hat nämlich überhaupt keine andere Wahl als diese Zeugen unglaubwürdig zu machen. Das ist sein Job.
Denn wenn jemand eine Frau VOR den Schüssen schreien gehört hat, dann gerät OPs ganze Aussage ins Wanken.
Auch, dass es unmöglich ist, dass man Reeva noch nach dem letzten Schuss hat schreien gehört, ist wegen der "FADING screams" anders zu verstehen.
Possible (partial) scream and the speed of sound.
Matters of Physics and Medicine
Regarding this matter, we have had attorneys (and others) claim it was “impossible” for any utterance to be heard from Reeva (allegedly) after the 4th shot. A brilliant, and stalwart witness, despite hours of badgering, would not alter her testimony. She is right to do so, IMO.
First some physics. Most modern guns have the bullet being fired off at supersonic speed. Some guns/bullets can be fired off at several times the speed of sound. I do not know the (muzzle) velocity of the bullets in this matter, but they almost certainly left the gun at supersonic speed, and as I already have described, their wave packets included sonic booms (which would almost never be confused with cricket bat bashing of a door).
Because of the supersonic nature of the bullets’ sound wave patterns, (and depending on distance and numerous other parameters), it is possible that Reeva could have been in the process of her last scream say, when the 4th shot was fired. And a listener at some distance—more likely the greater the distance!—could actually hear the 4th shot slightly before hearing the final (diminished) scream (because the scream travels at no more than the speed of sound). Dr. Burger said it could have been as little as ½ second between her hearing the 4th shot and Reeva’s last utterance. (Hearing more than 4 shots [Mr. Johnson] is also easily explained by wave superposition physics—more commonly known as echoes—again more likely to occur at greater distances, because the brain is able to distinguish the wave packets (echoes) given enough temporal spacing.
Physics often appears not to jibe with “common sense,” unless a person knows the physics. But in physics, there is also the well-known phrase, “the Universe is not limited to anyone’s limited ability to understand it.” This includes attorneys (and everyone else), despite any declarations of what they, or anyone, claims is “impossible.”
Now for some medicine-related matters. And given the above, this part may not even be necessary.
But I include it for completeness. Roux (as with the above matter) likes to insist on what is impossible. There is the issue of what Reeva could have uttered regarding the head shot. If she was already in the process of screaming that final scream, nerve impulses—already on their way— to her vocal cords and diaphragm say, could have allowed a brief truncated scream—which again jibes well with Dr. Burger’s testimony.
Again this too may seem not to make common sense, but is born out by both the physics of the nerve signals already underway, and perhaps by actual other cases. The tragic tale of George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin includes the following. Despite being fatally shot in the lung and heart, Martin (allegedly) got off a complete sentence after being shot. “Okay, you got it,” Now obviously being fatally shot in the brain is not the same as being fatally shot in the lung and heart. But I have already noted the conjunction of the physics and medicine above when I cited nerve signals could already have left the brain just before it was impacted.
So to sum up, nothing in Dr. Burger’s testimony is “impossible.” Rather the opposite—it appears to incorporate the actual laws of physics. Of course, this is somewhat of a general discussion, because (as noted above) the specific muzzle velocity, and other parameters, are not known to me. Dr. Burger’s testimony is to me highly credible, as is her stalwart nature to her truth and what she heard. Now (hopefully) amply explained in detail. ©Shane13
cricket bats are not unknown to break off at the handle... happens often in the highest level of the game, and doesn't actually require a fast ball to do it.. it all depends on the angle of the holder of the bat, and the momentum of his swing. Oscar, an unknown skill at batting, would have an amazing amount of luck to have 4 heavy swings at a solid and immovable object like a door, heavy and fast enough swings and contact , (because there is not enough time for Oscar to take a swing and miss... every swipe has to make contact to fit in with the timing of gunshot to have it mistaken for gunfire ) without demolishing the bat around the 3rd swing, I estimate..
To hit that door 4 times in succession he has to have his length from the weakest place on the door EXACTLY correct, for each swing, allowing no variable for momentum to knock him off course, he has to be able to withdraw the bat to its widest distance to get the momentum of the next swing to collide with the door at the exact same place, he has to do this at speed that denies the physics of a solid object propelled thru air, and he has to do this 4 times, while screaming at an intruder. And having the intruder scream back at him in a female's voice.
That would be a neat trick.