Trial Discussion Thread #48

AJ_DS · Jul 30, 2014

G.bng said:
For anyone interested posting my visual timeline, ( "Oscar Pistorius - Timeline 14 February 2013 - 1.56 am to 3.30 am" ), I finally managed to finish in time for closings based on all the ear-witness testimonies (not Motshuane since she gave no times). I worked on it as I went listening and transcribing bit by bit earwitness testimonies over the past months so I think I have most times, details, etc., correct and where I had to approximate or calculate I've given the whys and wheres but also tried to keep my opinion to a minimum as it was not to create a debate but to help visualise how from my workings the testimonies piece together.

Obviously there will be things I missed or got wrong so welcome any corrections or anything of real importance I missed (if I can fit anything else on it!) but please PM me any corrections or additions with a link and/or post number so I can check it out first as I don't always have time to keep up with the thread so may not find anything until past judgement, if ever!

The upload here is just a preview to show what it's about because it is unreadable so included link to it in photobucket with it's title title at the beginning of the post where it can be viewed and read by scrolling along but unfortunately AFAIK there are no options for enlarging or reducing so if anyone knows a better host would love to know. I already tried docdroid as a pdf which is so much better as you can select different viewing sizes but for some quirky reason the dotted time lines transfer as solid ones so it looks more like a typographic Mondrian or a constructivist artwork than a timeline so am trying to work out how to resolve the problem... any ideas? If I get the pdf problem sorted will post if anyone interested.

A few comments / corrections :

1. Silverwoods is a luxury estate, not a prison camp… the security guards are employed by the residents and view them as the Clients… The security staff would NEVER intervene or involve themselves in an argument between clients… their job is estate security, NOT domestic conflict resolution mediation… therefore the 'all clear' during the checkpoint at 2:20AM does NOT refer to what residents are doing in their homes. If Reeva was heard arguing loudly with OP, the security guard would NOT log it and considered it, as he should, as none of his business… in SA, poor black man does not meddle in the private affairs of rich white man.

2. EDVM's 'around 3AM' does not indicate exactly 3AM… gunshots occurred at 3:15AM

3. The sequence EDVM related to the Court is : 4 loud bangs, no other bangs, no other noises, no screams, complete silence, some time after a commotion, call to security, OP crying loudly. Therefore the commotion CANNOT be OP screaming for Reeva. The commotion heard and seen by EDVM's husband is Security buggy and Stander's arriving at OP's house.

4. DrJS tried to call many numbers after the first set of bangs but could not get through… therefore there is no 'waiting 13+ minutes' doing nothing as you suggested

5. MN an EN's 'early hours' does not mean 3:03AM… they only heard the last bang… no other bangs after that so it was at 3:15AM

6. MN was not leisurely doing a walk-about in his house after he heard the bang… he rushed to his daughter's bedroom door to make sure it was still locked then he took a quick look in his house if anything was wrong…then he called security at 3:16… therefore last gunshot at 3:15AM, 1 minute to check and phone call to security.

7. CJ's 3:16AM time is NOT from a server but from his own phone… it does NOT contradict the time that the gunshots were heard : 3:15AM

8. Correct time-duration-sequence of calls of OP's phone

03:19:03 (24s) Outgoing Johan Stander

Idle 38s between voice calls

03:20:05 (1m6s) Outgoing Netcare

Idle 22s between voice calls

03:21:33 (9s) Outgoing Pieter Baba

Idle 6s between voice calls

03:21:47 (7s) Outgoing Voicemail access

Idle 11s between voice calls

03:22:05 (12s) Incoming Pieter Baba

9. If a panicked OP can wake up a sleeping JS in the middle of the night and get him to come to his house with a 24-second phone call, Dr.JS can certainly get security to come to his house in a 16-second phone call.

10. 3:12AM seems to be a pivotal time in your chart… why and where does it come from ???

11. Interesting how you attempt to place most of the testimony evidence before the 3:15AM gunshots… I see that you question all of the witnesses with what they were doing between 3AM and 3:15AM, why they did not call security earlier, etc… EXCEPT MN and EN !!!

12. Interesting that the 'crying and can't speak' is mentioned but the 'everything is fine' is absent from your chart… bias anyone ?!?

Susza · Jul 30, 2014

Lux et Veritas said:
Graphic photos.

Dignity.

Who are we really protecting - the victim/family...or ourselves?

Are certain brutalities publicly acceptable while others are not?

WHY?

Withholding graphic crime scene photos/graphic court testimony is wrong.

Its simply stunning in its misguided sense of decency and propriety. In their vast wisdom, the courts unilaterally determine that we are all children, innocent Pollyannas who live in Neverland - that we cant handle the truth, we must be protected. Protected from what - the TRUTH?

During OPs testimony, graphic photos of dead Reeva were accidentally shown in court.

ACCIDENTALLY?

Isnt the whole point of this murder trial the graphically dead Reeva?!! This notion of accidental showing - as if it is somehow a grave offense - is ridiculous in the extreme, bizarre on its face. If one is accused of murder, shouldnt the graphic results of that murder be the #1 evidence displayed in open court? Isnt that death the singular point of the entire trial?!

Its like enthusiastically electing to throw a brutal, bloody war, but then not show the graphic, gruesome results of that brutal, bloody war to the public (the same public that fights the war and pays for the war). Such a sanitized policy is cowardly and perverse (especially when war crimes are involved!). War is extremely bad, extremely ugly - but lets just sanitize it and pretend - we wont show just how extremely bad, how extremely ugly it really is. [side note: This is one reason maimed/traumatized US war veterans are all but invisible when they return, why they too often end up homeless or commit suicide, why they too often dont get the help they desperately need - we REFUSE to show the truth of war and its manifestly awful consequences. Same with murder - most victims simply become little more than invisible names and statistics.]

Simple words too often fail miserably to accurately convey the harsh reality in murder cases.

Murder, as a word and legal concept, is clean, neat, abstract. A murdered human is not clean, neat or abstract. For gods sake, let us deal in REALITY! (Let those who dont wish to see such photos turn away.) We have a solemn moral duty as a society (the justice system even more so) to accurately, publicly display the wretched TRUTH - murderous actions have miserable, insanely horrid consequences. Portraying anything less than the entire truth is a grave disservice to victims. (Seriously, do you honestly think a murder victim would wish the stark visual reality of their death withheld? I certainly would not.). By disallowing open court to view all such photos (treating the public like 3 year olds), the crime itself is diminished, whitewashed - like sanitized war photos. It disrespects victims in the extreme by not showing the ENTIRE truth of the crime.

Excuses of protecting the victims and/or familys dignity simply do NOT hold up (yes, the family has every right NOT to view the photos, if they wish, which I staunchly defend). But also remember this: murder is a crime not only against the person, but against the State; the public has a vested interest in crimes against the public.

Lets face reality head on. The victim is DEAD - s/he does not care about dignity. The family desperately wants JUSTICE above all - if graphic photos/graphic testimony help bring justice, isnt that the goal? The only road to justice is to literally see the whole truth. (If it was my murdered daughter, Id want the freaking WORLD to see exactly what OP did.) To downplay the graphic nature of murder in a misguided bid to preserve alleged dignity is to subtly, indirectly continue the proliferation of violence. (Well, yeah, he killed her but it wasnt so bad - I saw the [sanitized, highly selective] photos.) NO!!! Killing someone doesnt tell the story - ALL graphic crime scene photos/testimony tells the real story - not bits and pieces through an arbitrary filter.

Society must SEE the true consequences of violence. Yes, seeing such horrid photos / hearing graphic testimony is extremely uncomfortable - but thats the point: murder and its far-reaching familial/societal consequences are extremely uncomfortable. It should be. The dead body is Exhibit #1 - it too often gets lost amid all the trial legalese and courtroom dramatics in a warped sense of preserving "dignity".

The accused did not shy away from committing murder - we should never shy away from seeing the full results of that murder, if we so wish.

Full justice demands full disclosure.

Murder victims deserve nothing less.

That is true dignity.

One more thing. . .

The extremely disparate treatment of graphic court testimony/photos between Reeva Steenkamps murder trial and the Anene Booysens of the world is a whole other discussion entirely, isnt it? Highly selective dignity - based on class and color. Apparently, certain victims deserve more dignity than others.

Thank you, Lux, this is a very important point. I totally agree! I found myself treated in a very disrespectfull manner by not being shown the (visual) truth.

Greater Than · Jul 30, 2014

G.bng said:
For anyone interested posting my visual timeline, ( "Oscar Pistorius - Timeline 14 February 2013 - 1.56 am to 3.30 am" ), I finally managed to finish in time for closings based on all the ear-witness testimonies (not Motshuane since she gave no times). I worked on it as I went listening and transcribing bit by bit earwitness testimonies over the past months so I think I have most times, details, etc., correct and where I had to approximate or calculate I've given the whys and wheres but also tried to keep my opinion to a minimum as it was not to create a debate but to help visualise how from my workings the testimonies piece together.

Obviously there will be things I missed or got wrong so welcome any corrections or anything of real importance I missed (if I can fit anything else on it!) but please PM me any corrections or additions with a link and/or post number so I can check it out first as I don't always have time to keep up with the thread so may not find anything until past judgement, if ever!

The upload here is just a preview to show what it's about because it is unreadable so included link to it in photobucket with it's title title at the beginning of the post where it can be viewed and read by scrolling along but unfortunately AFAIK there are no options for enlarging or reducing so if anyone knows a better host would love to know. I already tried docdroid as a pdf which is so much better as you can select different viewing sizes but for some quirky reason the dotted time lines transfer as solid ones so it looks more like a typographic Mondrian or a constructivist artwork than a timeline so am trying to work out how to resolve the problem... any ideas? If I get the pdf problem sorted will post if anyone interested.

You obviously put a lot of time and effort into this, but it really looks like you've tried to make it fit the DT's version. Referring to all sounds heard around 3:00 as "gunshots" and all sounds around 3:15 as "bangs" or "shots" is is highly misleading, and highly inaccurate.

I noticed you thanked minor's post in the timeline thread, but many times and/or descriptions on your timeline differ. Minor updated that timeline after the state's final ear witness testified.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-***NO-DISCUSSION***&p=10335493#post10335493

The only ear witnesses excluded from minor's timeline are those the defense called, who, with the exception of EN's wife who heard a "bang" around 3:15, only heard the end of the entire incident with OP crying and Stander, Baba, and Stipp arriving at OP's house.

Lux et Veritas · Jul 30, 2014

Interested Bystander said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure_in_South_Africa
Bail pending appeal
When an appeal against a conviction or sentence or order of a lower court is noted, this does not automatically suspend the operation of the sentence unless the court releases the convicted person on bail.[120] If the convicted person was out on bail for trial, the court granting bail pending appeal (or review) may extend bail, in the same amount or in any other amount

THANK YOU so much, Interested Bystander!!

Great links, I'm going to bookmark them.

Considering his nightlife escapades, I'd be surprised if the court didn't yank back the alcohol provision. The guy obviously has a problem with it and gets in trouble. But hellz, he gets in trouble without alcohol, too!

I think you're right about Mozambique! LOL

foxbluff · Jul 30, 2014

Lux et Veritas said:
Oscar partying with buddies in Mozambique December 2013.

Honestly, does this look like a "heartbroken", "depressed", "suicidal" man?!!

(Perhaps it's the SMILE that gives him away?)

I also seriously question the morals and character of his friends, too.

Speaking of his smile in that photo dated Dec. 26, 2013, let's not forget that it was in Dec. 2013 that OP met his "new" gf in Mozambique...

Btw, PBS = Public Broadcasting Service - a network of non-commercial EDUCATIONAL TV stations in the states, supported via donations from the general public. That's why I didn't think it was THAT pbs which provided the photo! LOL (Hmm... unless it was shown in conjunction w/one of their fab "Brit Comedies."

Greater Than · Jul 30, 2014

katydid23 said:
If Frank was going to testify that he truly heard nothing, then that hurts the state. That could mean there was no loud screaming match leading up to the tragedy. So I could see why Nel might not call him.

But it seems so damning that OP never reached out to Frank that night. First, during the 'break-in.' He could have called out to Frank for help. Didnt Frank have a cell or a landline?

And why call Stander for help moving your dying girlfriend when you have a strong employee just downstairs? I will never understand that.

And I don't get why Nel allowed OP to testify that no one else was in the home that night. Talk about the elephant in the room. Shouldnt it have been stipulated that there was an employee, but he was deaf and blind?

I don't think if Frank had testified that he heard nothing it would hurt the state's case. Just because he didn't hear anything doesn't mean nothing happened (we know something happened), nor does it negate the five other ear witnesses who did hear something. The DT is not disputing that those ear witnesses heard something, they're just disputing what and who they heard.

The PT only calls witnesses who have information that helps prove their case. They don't call witnesses who they feel should know more than they claim just to grill them under oath.

Besides, Frank would be a bias witness. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the case, so if he supported OP's version, his testimony would be questionable anyway.

I agree that it is odd that Nel let OP say he and Reeva were alone in the house, but he rested his case without calling Frank as a witness, and he couldn't have asked him if Frank heard anything because that would be hearsay.

But for our purposes as observers, Frank saying nothing says everything. MOO

eimajjjj · Jul 30, 2014

Greater Than said:
I don't think if Frank had testified that he heard nothing it would hurt the state's case. Just because he didn't hear anything doesn't mean nothing happened (we know something happened), nor does it negate the five other ear witnesses who did hear something. The DT is not disputing that those ear witnesses heard something, they're just disputing what and who they heard.

The PT only calls witnesses who have information that helps prove their case. They don't call witnesses who they feel should know more than they claim just to grill them under oath.

Besides, Frank would be a bias witness. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the case, so if he supported OP's version, his testimony would be questionable anyway.

I agree that it is odd that Nel let OP say he and Reeva were alone in the house, but he rested his case without calling Frank as a witness, and he couldn't have asked him if Frank heard anything because that would be hearsay.

But for our purposes as observers, Frank saying nothing says everything. MOO

Agreed. Plus Frank saying he heard nothing wouldn't exactly bolster DT's claim OP was screaming woman-like blood-curdling screams. Both cases accept there was a lot of noise that night.

There's always the option that he did just indeed get incredibly drunk that night and passed out. There were other neighbours that heard nothing. Everything else is just assumption really.

Greater Than · Jul 30, 2014

Interested Bystander said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure_in_South_Africa
Bail pending appeal
When an appeal against a conviction or sentence or order of a lower court is noted, this does not automatically suspend the operation of the sentence unless the court releases the convicted person on bail.[120] If the convicted person was out on bail for trial, the court granting bail pending appeal (or review) may extend bail, in the same amount or in any other amount

Taken from the link you posted:

The fact that the person is now convicted and sentenced to imprisonment changes the position practically: There is no longer a presumption of innocence, on the one hand; on the other hand, the incentive to evade justice is greater.

Even if there is no indication that the convicted person will try to evade justice, bail may be refused on the ground that the prospects of success on appeal are small.

Unrelated to bail, but this is stated under the section "Contested trial":

The effect of false testimony by the accused is usually equivalent to his giving no evidence.

Since he is charged with murder, this is a prima facie case. A prima facie case means at first glance, there is enough evidence to convict. If OP hadn't testified, his version would have been automatically rejected and the state's version accepted, resulting in a conviction.

If Masipa (and I don't see how she can't) concludes that he gave false testimony and lied, at least in part, this implies to me that it's the equivalent to him not testifying at all, which would mean he will be found guilty. I hope that's the case.

eimajjjj · Jul 30, 2014

I always wondered how evidence is treated and this seems to give an indictator: the judge listens to all evidence, discards the pieces that are proven to be false, ranks the ones that are given on the same part of the case by expertise and then adds it all together.

In this case, if OP's evidence is completely stricken from the record, the witness statements are shown to be reliable, and Masipa ranks Saayman higher than the anaesthetist and Botha in terms of food consumption evidence, then there is no alternative but to see him as guilty.

Judgement seems to be purely scientific. Makes sense.

Greater Than · Jul 30, 2014

wb180 said:
Don't think his father is scared. More like he is stuck in the middle. He knows the ammo wasn't his but can't make a statement to say that as at the end of the day, his own son is on trial. He doesn't want to lie on statement since maybe someone might pick up on this with some new evidence that the ammo wasn't his and charge him with perjury. So he keeps quiet and not make a statement.

His father was asked to sign a sworn affidavit that the ammo was his. He refused. That is his statement. It doesn't belong to him, and he wouldn't lie and say it did.

Not to mention, OP and his father had been estranged for years. For how long had OP been in possession of his ammo for safe keeping? And why? Dad owns plenty of guns and can store his own ammo.

It's OP's. He lied. Again.

Lux et Veritas · Jul 30, 2014

jay-jay said:
I wonder if OP is watching the Commonwealth Games at the moment? The final of the 400m is this evening, which he would've no doubt been running in if he hadn't killed Reeva and been on trial for murder. His buddy (ex buddy? .. wonder if they are still friends .. doubt it!) Martyn Rooney* will be running in it (he came in first in the heats last night). He must be feeling pig sick right now .. good!

*he is the one who was staying with OP less than a week before he killed Reeva, and Reeva tweeted that she and OP were enjoying his company so much, she wanted to kidnap him https://twitter.com/reevasteenkamp/status/300319882812223488

I seriously doubt OP could stomach watching any such competitions. It would cruelly remind him of his lost glory - the old life he himself killed. Like you, I hope he gets violently ill every time he happens to see his friends (and adversaries...hi, Alan!) going on with their sporting careers.

I imagine OP has lost a good chunk of friends, if not most of them. (They, too, have been robbed of both his and Reevas friendships - as the world has been robbed of both their brilliant future potentials.)

Astonishing how much is lost on multiple levels when one pulls the trigger. A few seconds in anger - a lifetime to pay.

(Make no mistake - even if OP is acquitted, he WILL pay in a thousand ways. Everything that he held dear is already gone. Hes already a social pariah.)

Ego and temper are extremely expensive - not just for the aggressor, but for EVERYONE around him. Everyone pays the price.

foxbluff · Jul 30, 2014

Greater Than said:
I don't think if Frank had testified that he heard nothing it would hurt the state's case. Just because he didn't hear anything doesn't mean nothing happened (we know something happened), nor does it negate the five other ear witnesses who did hear something. The DT is not disputing that those ear witnesses heard something, they're just disputing what and who they heard.

The PT only calls witnesses who have information that helps prove their case. They don't call witnesses who they feel should know more than they claim just to grill them under oath.

Besides, Frank would be a bias witness. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the case, so if he supported OP's version, his testimony would be questionable anyway.

I agree that it is odd that Nel let OP say he and Reeva were alone in the house, but he rested his case without calling Frank as a witness, and he couldn't have asked him if Frank heard anything because that would be hearsay.

But for our purposes as observers, Frank saying nothing says everything. MOO

[Quote from GreaterThan's post] I agree it's odd that Nel let OP say he and Reeva were alone in the house,...[End Quote]

Could it be that Nel dropped that line of questioning on purpose, planning to use it in Closing Statement as one of the many lies OP told? That, coupled w/planning to hit OP hard in Closing by saying that if he really wanted to save RS's life, then why didn't he simply and reasonably call on the other man in the house????

Nel was perhaps trying to keep the DT from anticipating (far in advance) the content of his Closing Statement, thus giving them more time to come up with a good counter.

Well, as of today, the DT has a copy of Nel's Closing Statement. I would have given ANYTHING to be a fly on the wall in the same room as Roux and team getting their first look at it !!

Lux et Veritas · Jul 30, 2014

MURDERER_SERVANT said:
Good chart G.bng..

But the most damning 01:48:48 GPRS 309 seconds internet activity of 0020 phone of OP not included in the timeline to say the least ?

Damning is certainly an understatement. The end of that internet activity would be 1:54:03 am - suspiciously close to the time of 1:56 am when Estelle van der Merwe started hearing arguing. This helps prove that (self-documented insomniac) OP was NOT asleep from 10pm to 3am.

Interested Bystander · Jul 30, 2014

Interesting read. Comments by Ulrich Roux and David Dadic re what can happen next.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/07/pistorius-guilty-can-appeal-win/

“Moreover his bail will be extended to the hearing of the appeal so assuming he is sentenced to prison he will at least buy himself a bit more time at home pending the outcome of the appeal.”

Val1 · Jul 30, 2014

One thing that I've noted during my "sleuthing" is how so many of the participants in this trial had mysteriously lost all their tweets sometime between approximately 2012 and after OP's bail hearing, if not even more recently. Either a lot of people didn't want to get involved, had something to hide(possible conflict of interest?), or someone was working overtime scrubbing the internet. No wonder OP was so upset when Nel was able to bring forward some bit on the data entered as evidence that we all heard Roux reply to with something along the line of yes he can do that. I'm still wondering if that "bit"(or should I say byte?) is anything we were privy to or one of those pieces of evidence that were entered but kept from public eyes...

ie. the blonde on the DT went from Aug/11 to Apr/13, Ramsay Webber Law went from Oct/12 to Mar/13, as well as any of the witnesses I've reviewed other than a few pertinent texts that others had taken screenshots of had also iirc went "silent" over about the same timeframe.

Interested Bystander · Jul 30, 2014

When Woolmarans was giving testimony on 12th May this year he said he visited OP property 3-4 weeks before and that Frank Chiziweni opened the door to him. So it seems he has/had not disappeared as many of us thought.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-steenkamp-murder-12-may

“Nel is asking Wolmarans about his night visits to the crime scene. The most recent was three or four weeks ago, during the trial, after Dixon's evidence about visibility from the balcony. (Dixon said the balcony light was off when he tried to recreate what the sportsman could see, even though Pistorius has acknowledged it was on.)

The defence asked Wolmarans to go back to see what he could see with the balcony light on. Frank opened the door for him, says Wolmarans (Frank is Frank Chiziweni, Pistorius' housekeeper, who was asleep in the house on the night Steenkamp was killed. He has not been called to give evidence)."

eimajjjj · Jul 30, 2014

Interested Bystander said:
Interesting read. Comments by Ulrich Roux and David Dadic re what can happen next.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/07/pistorius-guilty-can-appeal-win/

“Moreover his bail will be extended to the hearing of the appeal so assuming he is sentenced to prison he will at least buy himself a bit more time at home pending the outcome of the appeal.”

Frustrating beyond belief. And illogical IMO. Why employ a judge in the first place if upon conviction and sentencing of an accused, they're not even incarcerated until the appeal. I can understand bail somewhat i.e. innocent until proven guilty, but when you have a conviction, one must give the judge some sort of respect and credit and uphold their decision to declare guilt to some extent surely?

Interested Bystander · Jul 30, 2014

eimajjjj said:
Frustrating beyond belief. And illogical IMO. Why employ a judge in the first place if upon conviction and sentencing of an accused, they're not even incarcerated until the appeal. I can understand bail somewhat i.e. innocent until proven guilty, but when you have a conviction, one must give the judge some sort of respect and credit and uphold their decision to declare guilt to some extent surely?

I absolutely agree with you. I find it alarming that murderers with gun convictions are likely to be allowed out on bail for probably 18 months before the appeal is heard. I can't help thinking this would not be the outcome for most felons in SA. It seems to me that there is still a long way to go in SA before the judiciary treats black, white, rich and poor as equals.

Cherwell · Jul 30, 2014

G.bng said:
Please, what do you mean "hurt the state" and you could "see why Nel might not call him" !!!

You really are doing Nel a great disservice. Do you really think the State or Nel or the courts are in the business of putting innocent people in prison? Would that be justice?

Justice is not a competition even if the English system is adversarial the aim of a trial is to get to the truth. I mean Just say as you note that Nel was aware that Frank had been wide awake and could truthfully testify there was no screaming whatsoever except OP's that night. What kind of human being do you think Nel would be if he purposefully didn't call Frank just so it wouldn't "hurt" his case so he could "win" and take the credit while putting an innocent person in jail. Do you really think that is how justice works and if you do then look inside and tell me what kind of justice would that be.

No innocent person will be going to jail in this case, so no need to worry about that.

eimajjjj · Jul 30, 2014

Interested Bystander said:
I absolutely agree with you. I find it alarming that murderers with gun convictions are likely to be allowed out on bail for probably 18 months before the appeal is heard. I can't help thinking this would not be the outcome for most felons in SA. It seems to me that there is still a long way to go in SA before the judiciary treats black, white, rich and poor as equals.

And why should appeals cost any money at all?! Either a judge has made a decision that stands or they haven't. And if there's a process to question that, surely everyone has that right.

I take comfort (or perhaps I'm being hopeful!) in that OP is famous enough to force such media attention that each and every judge along this appeal process will be named and under scrutiny so chances for foul play are slim.

Trial Discussion Thread #48

Former Member

Member

Retired Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Retired Moderator

New Member

Retired Moderator

New Member

Retired Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Ice Cream

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics