Freya1977
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,484
- Reaction score
- 123
The amount of urine in her bladder is consistent with having just peed. Normally there's about a teaspoon left in there and that's how much she had - 5ml.
Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195
- Latest: somequestions
- Status
The amount of urine in her bladder is consistent with having just peed. Normally there's about a teaspoon left in there and that's how much she had - 5ml.
Forensics
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 0
So it's a case of despite who's asking the questions, your refer to the judge when you answer? Fair enough.
That's correct.
All the witnesses that. They are actually addressing the Judge, not the prosecutor.
I agree. It looks silly and confusing to me.
SA legal tradition requires the witness/defendant to address all of his/her responses to the judge (in this case a woman, hence "My Lady") even though he/she is being questioned by a lawyer. Can be quite confusing for those not familiar with the process (myself included until I finally realized what was happening!).
Freya1977
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,484
- Reaction score
- 123
Not sympathetic - she wants a fair trial and no opportunity for him to claim he didn't get one.
Funny you should write this, but when I take off my 'straight' jeans or trousers they usually do go inside out and then I have the bother of turning them back to hang them up !
BritsKate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 4,834
In South Africa, witnesses address their testimony to the judge.
Many do. I think she's being cautious to prevent appellate issues. MOO
I don't think she is sympathetic to OP just doing her job very well and interjecting and correcting things that she see's as incorrect or unreasonable .
Her bladder was empty leading to three conclusions
1. There was no reason for her to go to the toilet
2. Alternatively, she went to the toilet and urinated in the short span of time between OP hearing the window slide open and shouting out (Edit: 30 seconds tops before door slams - also proved she would need to get off the toilet to slam the door).
3. Alternatively, she went to the toilet and urinated, then got up and opened the window and then ran in and slammed the toilet door in the short span of time between the OP moving the fans and hearing the window open (Edit: At most 1 minute).
All of which is incredibly unlikely and will likely come up tomorrow in cross-exam.
I'm also curious as to where the toilet key normally is
Yes, but OP can remember things in minute detail .. when he wants to ..
Makes me wonder if the blood on the duvet and trailing onto carpet in the bedroom could have been Reeva's menstrual blood?
just running through op version. i did a count
03:15ish
1. down the dark hall [on stumps] shoots
2. returns in darkness [on stumps] to check for reeva
3. back to toilet, in darkness [on stumps] to find door is locked
4. back to balcony, in darkness [on stumps] to call help, help, help
... puts on legs
5. back to toilet [on legs] kicks door
6. back to bedroom [on legs] for cricket bat
7. back to door [on legs] to break it open
8. downstairs [on legs] to open door
9. upstairs to bathroom [on legs] to collect body.
10. down to first landing carrying body [on legs] as security guy enters 03:26ish
plus 5 minutes sitting by the body
not sure if i added too many trips...
I agree. The Bang [pause] Bang Bang Bang is strange. Why the pause?
It lines up with the way the shots are aligned, as if something allowed him to know where to shoot the last three shots.
But, I agree with him that his ears would be ringing after the first shot in that close space. Could he hear anything?
And, I would think they would have done the forensics properly when they determined the shots all happened before the door was pulled apart.
So that leaves--would it be possible for him to see inside after the first shot?
Through the bullet hole?
Maybe it's just coincidence.
http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/6.jpg
Do you have a link for the exact time the security guy/Stander arrives?
Edit: I believe it is 3:45 ish
The bit i dont get is the MOMENT where he thought he had shot Reeva and it not being an intruder. By his test after the shots and running back to the bedroom he still thought it MAY be the intruder coz he said he came back to look for Reeva in the dark. No. 1, surely you would call out and say something like "Reeva are you ok?" On not hearing anything, check around. Cant find her in the place you told her to get down. Ok check balcony...fine. She's not there. Panic sets in surely, you rush downstairs to check if she was there. (Now lets take a step back....balcony door should be open right?) I can see the sense of him having the gun with him still, so thats fine.
But it falls apart here.
If OP is really concerned about Reeva, forget about the legs, you go looking for her, gun possibly still in hand, cant find her. Only THEN when he returns to the bedroom is when he would think he may of made a mistake...surely. Thats when the legs get put on. Not before.
IMV when he fired the shots, he knew it was her immediately. He came back shouted on the balcony for help, put his legs on and then tried to smash the door down.
He's just stitched himself up. That would of made more sense if he just told the truth and said that after he fired he knew straight away it was Reeva and not the crap he's coming up with about going back to look for her. Idiot!
But it falls apart here.
If OP is really concerned about Reeva, forget about the legs, you go looking for her, gun possibly still in hand, cant find her. Only THEN when he returns to the bedroom is when he would think he may of made a mistake...surely. Thats when the legs get put on. Not before.
IMV when he fired the shots, he knew it was her immediately. He came back shouted on the balcony for help, put his legs on and then tried to smash the door down.
He's just stitched himself up. That would of made more sense if he just told the truth and said that after he fired he knew straight away it was Reeva and not the crap he's coming up with about going back to look for her. Idiot!
Cher352
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,359
- Reaction score
- 187
Yes, in the SA courts although the lawyers ask the questions the person on the stand always replies to the judge. MiLady for a female judge, I think it would MiLord if it is a male judge.
Suthrnqt
Verified Luddite
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,594
- Reaction score
- 102
Could be, but iirc, nothing to that nature has been put into evidence. Not yet, anyway.
Cher352
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,359
- Reaction score
- 187
Or maybe she is just trying to move Nel along instead of letting him argue the points of disagreement for so long.
This is very helpful to me. It wasn't until #5, OP having put on his legs and returned to the bathroom, that he claims to have put on the bathroom light. Mrs. Stipp was awake just before the first bangs, heard the bangs, and immediately looked across the open greenway right into OP's bathroom and noticed the bathroom light was on. Dr. Stipp soon joined her and testified that OP's bathroom light was "clearly on".
- Status