Trial Discussion Thread #46 - 14.07.7, Day 37

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Attorney Ulrich Roux on the local SA Channel 199 says that SA law forces the state to give the defense team access to the whole docket, but the defense is technically not legally bound to give the state access to anything. However it is usual to supply the state with expert witnesses' reports in advance. The fact that OP's defense team has not done so is very unusual and could even be called "highly unethical."

Ulrich Roux also says the fact that Prof Derman did not supply a report at all forced the state to rely on Dr Carla Kotze and so the defense is not entitled to consult with her. I think that the whole thing with Dr Kotze was a fishing expedition by the defense to see if Nel plans to reopen his case. Roux said that all Nel had to do is say that he plans to call her as a witness.
 
Val1 said:
Lol, it's the first time I've ever actually used my twitter account since I first made it years ago... too bad I don't know how to check my sent history, all I know is I tweeted quite a few(around 8 iirc) reporters with the initial link.
Click to expand...

Nel's behaviour today suggested to me that he'd seen the whole thing.
 
Val1 said:
Lol, it's the first time I've ever actually used my twitter account since I first made it years ago... too bad I don't know how to check my sent history, all I know is I tweeted quite a few(around 8 iirc) reporters with the initial link.
Click to expand...

I recognised your tweets, you did an excellent job
 
1. Beach, that's a VERY cute marshmellow cat laying across the two cups of cocoa!

2. Thanks, Zweibel, for your continued and exceptional service to the cause.

3. Do I hope Nel reopens the case? Yes, I think all of this is so interesting.

4. Do I think Nel will reopen the case? Sadly, my gut says "no".
 
<Respectfully snipped>

G.bng said:
In fact if you look at the footage closely, at least this is what I see, OP "running" is more like the gait of a marathon walker where they are not permitted to have both feet off the ground at any time and they would be disqualified for "running" if the do.
Click to expand...

Those are the exact words I used in my notes. Great minds think alike. It describes very well how he walks with the hip movement especially.
 
Marfa Lights said:
Somehow I suspect OP would be familiar with the sound of his own magazine rack being moved in the toilet cubicle. People tend to kick those around accidentally when they are that close to the toilet bowl. That sound would be wood on tile more of a "screech" as Roden described it in the leaked video and not like the sound wood on wood makes, which I would think would be more of a squeak or creaking noise. IIRC OP described the door making a "clicking" sound as it opened and scraped slightly against the custom-made door frame.
Click to expand...

The only person in the toilet was Reeva and she was standing close to and facing the door according to all the evidence.
Who moved the magazine rack to make the sound OP is saying that he heard?

I'm interested in your opinion.
 
Oscar Trial Channel &#8207;@OscarTrial199 55 mins
Roux calls Nel aside - they step out of court room
 
liesbeth said:
Attorney Ulrich Roux on the local SA Channel 199 says that SA law forces the state to give the defense team access to the whole docket, but the defense is technically not legally bound to give the state access to anything. However it is usual to supply the state with expert witnesses' reports in advance. The fact that OP's defense team has not done so is very unusual and could even be called "highly unethical."

Ulrich Roux also says the fact that Prof Derman did not supply a report at all forced the state to rely on Dr Carla Kotze and so the defense is not entitled to consult with her. I think that the whole thing with Dr Kotze was a fishing expedition by the defense to see if Nel plans to reopen his case. Roux said that all Nel has to do is say that he plans to call her as a witness.
Click to expand...
BIB - I always thought it was strange that Nel didn't get to see any relevant paperwork till the actual day. No wonder he kept having to ask for adjournments so he could look through it. The DT obviously wanted to make Nel's job as difficult as possible, which comes as no surprise having witnessed Roux's ugly treatment of innocent state witnesses. At least Roux's ridiculous request to consult with the state psychiatrist was refused.
 
Oscar Trial Channel &#8207;@OscarTrial199 4 hrs
Nel: did you see any other demonstration of accused running? Derman: when travelling, I saw him moving on his stumps

I believe Nel was referencing the video here lol
 
eimajjjj said:
Here's an article re: closing arguments and what happens next:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...scar-Pistorius-trial-timeline-to-verdict.html

"According to court sources, the process could take anything from two to six weeks, although the judge has made it clear she has other commitments and both sides should move as quickly as possible."
Click to expand...

From the article linked above:

"Typically, the state must submit its argument first for the defence to see, and the defence will then write its argument. "

That seems very unfair.
 
44ALLAN said:
The only person in the toilet was Reeva and she was standing close to and facing the door according to all the evidence.
Who moved the magazine rack to make the sound OP is saying that he heard?

I'm interested in your opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's why OP kept insisting that the magazine rack was closer was to the door (instead of where it was when Reeva fell on it after the first shot)-- so it would make sense that the intruder (or as it turned out, Reeva) would have kicked it making the noise.

As I have said in previous posts, and as many others agree, it appears that Oscar re-aimed after hearing Reeva fall on the magazine rack after the first shot hit her in the hip. It's another example of Oscar incorporating elements of reality into his story. He heard the magazine rack, all right, and IMO it made him fire the second, third, and fourth bullets.
 
Cherwell said:
From the article linked above:

"Typically, the state must submit its argument first for the defence to see, and the defence will then write its argument. "

That seems very unfair.
Click to expand...
It is unfair. Everything seems geared towards the DT being able to tailor and change their version versions depending on what the state say. I guess they need to see PT's closing argument so they can adapt their version versions round it. I would have thought closing arguments were exclusive to each side. They've all had their witnesses give evidence, so why the need for the DT to get a sneak preview into what the state are going to say?
 
PrimeSuspect said:
Nel returns to flight or fight response. It would cause you to run faster than normal, be more powerful, be more vigilant?

Nel: This flight or fight response is present in all people? Derman: It is indeed.

Nel: There was at least an option for OP to flee/even walk out the room? Derman: There is that option.

(Nel's voice sounds quivery)
Click to expand...

I'd like to return to the fight or flight response too. OP was in fight and Reeva was in flight.
 
44ALLAN said:
The only person in the toilet was Reeva and she was standing close to and facing the door according to all the evidence.
Who moved the magazine rack to make the sound OP is saying that he heard?

I'm interested in your opinion.
Click to expand...

As I understood it, the magazine rack moved after the first shot (that hit her in the hip) She collapsed and fell against the magazine rack. He then fired the next three shots in that direction. (?)
 
soozieqtips said:
It is unfair. Everything seems geared towards the DT being able to tailor and change their version versions depending on what the state say. I guess they need to see PT's closing argument so they can adapt their version versions round it. I would have thought closing arguments were exclusive to each side. They've all had their witnesses give evidence, so why the need for the DT to get a sneak preview into what the state are going to say?
Click to expand...

I guess it just goes with the pretext of 'innocent before proven guilty'. If the accused is guilty then it doesn't matter what the DT read beforehand, they either have the evidence to refute the PT claims or not. The judge will.. well..be the judge of that! I doubt we'll hear anything too different to what's already been presented.
 
Was there a chance the DT considered putting Roger Dixon back on the stand....according to twitter he was seen at court today,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 112 more.
Total: 1,860 (members: 113, guests: 1,747)

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
1,747
Total visitors
1,860
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,787
Messages
18,113,564
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top