Search results

I was NOT intending to join in with movie casting, but..... Vermuelen looks (and behaved) exactly like Ricky Gervais... perhaps not so well known to US audiences, though he has had parts in Hollywood movies. I am thinking of RG in the original UK "The Office" TV series, which was his original...

I agree... and you describe it better than I could. :tyou:

I think a "two stage" bat attack on the door is REALLY stretching credibility. What was presented in court was bat blows after the gunshots. We DO have the clear evidence of two sets of loud bangs and two events known to cause loud bangs. I do not see the Judge considering bat blows in two...

Quite possibly. Though they must have had something to say, else Nel woul not have had them on his witness list...... or are you suggesting that Nel was playing games... sticking names on his list just to stop people testifying for the defense? :) I'll say again... the Stipps were GREAT...

Yes. But the issue is NOT if OP (or any man) can "impersonate a woman screaming". It has more to do with the person hearing than the person making the sound. Can a person make a mistake in interpreting a sound coming over some distance from an enclosed bathroom? The answer is.... YES! People...

It seems like common sense to me that a closer witness would be a better ear witness. I don't understand your problem. If the State could have found close neighbors I imagine they would have preferred them to somebody 180 meters away. And I am sure they would have preferred witnesses who were...

:) I know it is a source of "amusement" to refer to "Oscar screaming like a woman" The issue really is though, can people Mis-interpret a Man's high pitched anguished cries as sounding like a woman screaming. There is a subtle difference. People can, for instance, mistake a cat's cries for...

I agree. If Roux can't find anybody who heard screams, then he has the State's witnesses to fall back on. That is one of the reasons that I LIKE the Stipps' evidence. I actually have no problem believing they simply misinterpreted OP's anguished cries as being "a woman screaming". So for me...

One couple WAS a long way away. And did not come forward for weeks after hearing news reports etc. That evidence is hardly ideal. It indicates desperation on the part of the PT if they were forced to use that evidence. Lets then go with just ONE couple out of all the near neighbors who heard...

Yes I can see it would not be taken seriously and would be just another place to post opinion and "one liners" I was actually thinking of specific real serious points of evidence, along the lines of what is accepted by both sides and agreed upon in court, together with facts shown by...

Thanks. It's getting to the point where it might be beneficial to have a separate thread to dispel "MYTHS" (As we had back in 2009 for the Casey Anthony case) There are a growing number of things repeated so often that they are taken as fact.. when they are not at all. Rather than explain...

I can not say I think it "likely" it was Reeva heard arguing. It is possible. And even if it WAS likely... that is still nowhere close to proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is possible that OP's version is made up. I was 50/50 on believing him when the trial started. I can at least...

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...

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...

Ya reckon? PT have rested their case... and I missed it :) I really do not think the PT have proved beyond reasonable doubt that OP shot KNOWING that Reeva was behind the door. There is still a LOT they could have proved... but they have not focused on that, so I am not sure how much...

So... did he have the bat with him in one hand, gun in the other hand as he chased Reeva into the toilet (on his stumps). Did he have his legs with him too... one tucked under either arm as he chased her with gun in one hand, bat in the other? Even so... he still had to pause and put his legs...

"Likely scenarios" are ok for defence... not so good for prosecution. Prosecution have this "Burden" to prove their case "Beyond reasonable doubt" It is the defense who have the luxury of just raising REASONABLE doubt... that's the rules :)

"Beyond Reasonable doubt".. means that often, in many cases that it is the defense's job to offer reasonable alternative explanations to what the State contends? That is partially what the Judicial system requires. Not any old alternative of course... Roux can not simply propose that an alien...

As I have said before.... independent of OP's "version".Put that to one side totally. After the shots there was stuff that HAD to have happened. I have outlined some of it (many times) There is simply no time. I am reluctant to repeat it all. It just gets countered with never ending "What...

It is possible that Van der Merwe heard some other person (woman) not person from OP's house at all. I think Roux was at least suggesting that possibility (reasonable doubt stuff) :) Remember Baba checked in to security point near OP's house at 2:20 and reports all was quiet then.