PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,729
https://twitter.com/Traceyams @CapeTownEtc #vanbreda
Adv G: Op't Hof's evidence was not that the argument was unabated for 2 hours but that she knew it started at 10 and ended at 12- counsel in cross-examination used the word "aanhoudened"
Adv G: it is not the defences case that Op't Hof was unable to hear anything from the house
Adv G: if she was trying to construct a version she could have added that her son woke up from screams or added that the argument was heard at 4 in the morning
Adv G:re the evidence of the couch pillows showing they were watching tv, the domestic worker testified that rudi had been lying there
Adv G: no evidence of watching a dvd or dvd near the machine
Adv G: asked about the blood drops on the adjacent walls- I considered the whole circumstances and thats why I concluded most possible is that it was Rudi's blood from within the room
Adv G; The argument re DNA analysis - refers to judgment on the merits of the matter we provided, in these last two matters Dr Olckers was heavily criticised for similar methods she used to test the states case
Adv G: in that matter 2 appellants and one rape victim who shared 5/6/7 alleles and their dna was the only evidence linking one to the crime
Adv G: the court found that given the circumstances of the case, neither the samples or the control mechanisms had any relevance in the matter in hand, he doesnt deny being on the scene nor is this the only evidence linking Henri to the crime
Adv G: Otto answered the questions about accreditation, finances being one of the reason they do not have it but she said it is not a legal requirement
Adv G: with reference to the proficiency test- she decided it was more important whether the suspects profile can be read in rather than the victims
Adv G: Joubert formed opinion that the accused version was highly improbable so its the states argument that the accused did not provide a consistent version throughout, his version changed from inside the bathroom to somewhere at the foot of his bed,to left of attacker
Adv G: he says he steps out of the bathroom when he heard the attacker attacking his mother- he also did not mention the second attacker in this statement
Adv G: Blood spatter evidence on the body of the accused contradicts the blood spatter on the shorts of the accused
Adv G: the shoe print in the bathroom, the analyst said he would no qualify it as a shoe print
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee
Galloway: never the testimony of Opt' Hof that the argument went on for a full two hours....
Galloway: there was no DVD of Star Trek. Also this not reflected on whatsapps
Galloway: DNA does not stand alone and must be considered with proper perspective....
Galloway: Joubert evidence says that the accused version is improbable. The accused tailored or changed his version when on the stand
Galloway: the accused was closer than what he said in his initial statement
Galloway: the blood spatter evidence on the body of the accused contradicts the blood spatter on the accused shorts
Adv G: Op't Hof's evidence was not that the argument was unabated for 2 hours but that she knew it started at 10 and ended at 12- counsel in cross-examination used the word "aanhoudened"
Adv G: it is not the defences case that Op't Hof was unable to hear anything from the house
Adv G: if she was trying to construct a version she could have added that her son woke up from screams or added that the argument was heard at 4 in the morning
Adv G:re the evidence of the couch pillows showing they were watching tv, the domestic worker testified that rudi had been lying there
Adv G: no evidence of watching a dvd or dvd near the machine
Adv G: asked about the blood drops on the adjacent walls- I considered the whole circumstances and thats why I concluded most possible is that it was Rudi's blood from within the room
Adv G; The argument re DNA analysis - refers to judgment on the merits of the matter we provided, in these last two matters Dr Olckers was heavily criticised for similar methods she used to test the states case
Adv G: in that matter 2 appellants and one rape victim who shared 5/6/7 alleles and their dna was the only evidence linking one to the crime
Adv G: the court found that given the circumstances of the case, neither the samples or the control mechanisms had any relevance in the matter in hand, he doesnt deny being on the scene nor is this the only evidence linking Henri to the crime
Adv G: Otto answered the questions about accreditation, finances being one of the reason they do not have it but she said it is not a legal requirement
Adv G: with reference to the proficiency test- she decided it was more important whether the suspects profile can be read in rather than the victims
Adv G: Joubert formed opinion that the accused version was highly improbable so its the states argument that the accused did not provide a consistent version throughout, his version changed from inside the bathroom to somewhere at the foot of his bed,to left of attacker
Adv G: he says he steps out of the bathroom when he heard the attacker attacking his mother- he also did not mention the second attacker in this statement
Adv G: Blood spatter evidence on the body of the accused contradicts the blood spatter on the shorts of the accused
Adv G: the shoe print in the bathroom, the analyst said he would no qualify it as a shoe print
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee
Galloway: never the testimony of Opt' Hof that the argument went on for a full two hours....
Galloway: there was no DVD of Star Trek. Also this not reflected on whatsapps
Galloway: DNA does not stand alone and must be considered with proper perspective....
Galloway: Joubert evidence says that the accused version is improbable. The accused tailored or changed his version when on the stand
Galloway: the accused was closer than what he said in his initial statement
Galloway: the blood spatter evidence on the body of the accused contradicts the blood spatter on the accused shorts