I am way behind, so do not know if this will be discussed, in later posts.
What does this statement mean Tortoise: that Henri cannot appeal the judgement????
Tracey Stewart said in her interview with Kelly Phelps:
What Henri has to prove:
“And then of course you have quite a strong version from Henri. He took the court into his confidence. He got into the witness box and his version has not differed from day one, much. You know, obviously he’s added a few things here and there or he’s remembered more detail where he perhaps didn’t on the first day, but basically from the first police officer who spoke to him, this was his version which is quite strong. So I think that Judge Desai has even, keeping in mind the legal tests that need to apply when you are looking at circumstantial evidence and now you also have an accused’s version which is, has been tested and has withstood those tests, it makes it even more difficult for Judge Desai to actually come to a decision whether or not he should convict or acquit”.
She’s an absolute lightweight and hasn’t got a clue. I’ve stated repeatedly that differing versions raise a huge red flag. The changes he made were significant, but not according to Tracey. I won’t go over them again because we all know what they are. It certainly mattered to Judge Desai and he noted many of the discrepancies in his Judgment.
"Investigative forensic psychologist Professor Gerard Labuschagne and former Colonel Bronwynn Stollarz joined Martin Bester on air on Tuesday to discuss the case."
Forensic psychologist and former colonel reveals interesting facts about van Breda murder
She hasn't got a clue, absolutely JJ. She's saying, " ... his version which is quite strong" ... er, no, here on WS we all thought his version was totally unbelievable but we were worried Judge Desai might be another Masipa and that Botha's tactics might just win the day. Thankfully Judge Desai is nobody's fool and called it how he - and we - all saw it.
And thankfully we're all back here again, and even if everything looks very different right now, there will be improvements and we'll get used to the changes. I am a bit at the smilies however.
Oh, and just this little thing occurred to me: that he turned up for the verdict with a pre-emptive buzzcut. He knew perfectly well he'd be going down and facing a shaved head, but he wasn't going to let them do it to him; he'd do it first. Arrogant to the last.
The girl said Brom told her he had gotten into an argument with his father at about 11:30 p.m. the previous night, and that he then stayed up until about 3 a.m.
David Brom - Wikipedia
he had a fight with his father over the songs he listened to, which possibly resulted in the deed.
Status: Sentenced to three consecutive life terms (and one concurrent life term) on October 17, 1989, and will be eligible for parole when he turns 70
David Francis Brom | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers
If Brom ever thinks about why he murdered his father, mother, sister, and brother, he has never shared it with the rest of the world over the past 30 years.
"I think everybody involved with that case asks themselves that question, and I have no answer," Judge Terrence Walters told KTTC.
Walters was the court-appointed attorney who represented Brom all those years ago.
[...]
30 years ago, Torgerson was a patrol deputy who got the call at 5:23 p.m. to do a welfare check at the Brom family home.
"I got up maybe four, five, six steps, and I could see two sets of feet laying at the tops of the steps," he recalled.
[...]
KTTC has sent letters to Brom, asking him about who he is 30 years after his crime, but we haven't received a response.
30 years after Brom murders: Where are we now?
I meant it is a comprehensive Judgement that has sound reasons for all the findings. It's very clever because when I have thought of things he didn't include I realize there is a rationale for not including them - it's always matters of speculation. I'll try and think of some examples tomorrow because I'm a bit tired right now, but when I read the whole summary judgment yesterday these things occurred to me along the way.I am way behind, so do not know if this will be discussed, in later posts.
What does this statement mean Tortoise: that Henri cannot appeal the judgement????
I understand that the issue of smilies is being addressed. I have my sources.
Part 2
Labuschagne immediately shut down the conspiracy theories that Marli had helped HvB plan this. She had massive amounts of brain trauma. There were multiple penetrating axe wounds into the brain. When he saw the photographs of her in hospital, he couldn’t believe that she survived and it’s a miracle that she recovered. He doubts she will ever recover her memories of that night.
Regarding motive, Stollarz refers to researcher and author, Kathleen Hyde, who says that there are 3 main reasons that offspring kill their parents and a sibling(s).
1. They are seriously abused and they kill their families in what they believe is the only way for them to escape the cycle of abuse.
2. A serious mentally ill offender who has a psychotic or delusional illness and they kill, for example, their mum and dad because they believe mum and dad are poisoning their food. That suspect will never go on trial.
3. The antisocial offender who kills for selfish reasons, and that, hands down, is what we’re seeing in the large majority of cases – children who feel that the family structure is too tight.
Often parents are too strict or too difficult or haven’t disciplined a child enough and then start to discipline a child as they get to their teens and early adulthood, and these children kill their families almost in an act of rebellion. “I want to do” X, Y or Z. “This is what I want to do with my life” and a parent who is saying, “No, no, no”.
“There have been no reports of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or anything like that. We know he’s not seriously mentally ill because he went on trial. So we do have to query did he kill his parents for selfish reasons”.