Trial Discussion Thread #1 - 14.03.03-06, Day 1-4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why doesn't Roux just climb up into the witness box and testify in place of the witness, since it seems that he's the one doing all the testifying.
 
I would be a terrible witness. At this point I would be going full Heisenberg on him. She is a very patient woman.
 
If I didn't know who the defendant was, I would think he was just another spectator in the gallery. How strange where they have the accused sit.
 
I am really disappointed with the judge this morning. At times she appears ill equipped or too inexperienced in this type of trial be judging such an important case and on occasion seems not to be following the proceedings accurately. She has allowed Roux to use an unofficial transcript of yesterday's proceedings (produced by his team) to question what was said. Apparently there is no official transcript available. I find this quite incredible. She has also told Roux that he is allowed to put words into the mouth of the witness OMG!!
 
Court in recess... while the defense attorney gets some documents in order.
 
Well, on that cue, time for me to bring in the fans and go to bed ;)

Good night kids.
 
I must say, I'm not impressed with SA's court system - if this trial is an example of how cases are routinely tried.

No offense to our fellow SA members.
 
Does anyone remember when the media reported there was no intruder?

Was it the very next morning when the news of the shooting broke?

I remember initially reading OP had shot Reeva because he had mistaken her for an intruder.

I remember media reports that she crept in and surprised him for valentine's day.
 
Just remember this witness has a PhD in a science-related field I believe.
She may have taken physics courses, and anyone's badgering or opining about what can or cannot be heard is not valid.

As someone posted here yesterday [a link to a site by a physicist] which included that a normal coversation being heard at great distance [which I forget but I believe was more than the 177 m. now being discussed] due to wave physics. (And sound is a wave and waves can superimpose and do things that may not jibe with common sense at times.

Also IIRC OP's new statements say he heard the bathrooom window sliding open [or was said to have been seen open by OP from his bail affidavit]. So Roux should not be saying with certainty that the bathroom window was closed!

Conclusion: This witness is extremely credible and stalwart. And nothng she says contradicts the laws of physics, despite Roux trying to imply something akin to that. She deserves an award.

And again I sure hope Pros. has a physicist in their witness list, and if not, amends that if possible.
 
I must say, I'm not impressed with SA's court system - if this trial is an example of how cases are routinely tried.

No offense to our fellow SA members.

IMO it is very amateurish. The Judge is especially weak. She seems to be pro-Barry Roux as if she is frightened of him. Even the two Assessors seem to be of the same ilk. Very compliant.

But the biggest booboo the Judge made is that Roux is allowed to put words into the witnesses' mouth!!!!! Surely that is wrong and that will be the next headline in MSM!

IMO this is like a trial in some third world country.
 
I remember media reports that she crept in and surprised him for valentine's day.

I remember reading that, as well, but it turned out to be either sloppy reporting or speculation/rumors.
 
I am just a spectator here and accept they do things differently in other countries. (for the most part)

I had a lawyer a couple weeks ago say morals? lawyers don't have morals lol

Back to tea time, is this like a nooner or second breakfast?
 
Why did Barry Roux ask MB whether she could remember her cellphone no?
 
During this cross a few minutes ago, Barry Roux in trying to impugn Dr.Burger , Roux said the bathroom window was closed, and how could she hear what she alleges she heard.

But OP's bail affidavit includes this:
"...I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door..."

The matter of light in the bathroom is also something people here also get wrong, so if I may help:

OP's bail Affidavit alleges that his bedroom was "pitch dark."
But not the bathroom.
Rather the opposite!
He alleges that because he can see the window open and also someone locked in the toilet, that s/he (they?) might be intruder(s) and that he must fire to protect himself and Reeva.

This implies that either he switched the light on, or it was already on in the bathroom. [He is not explicit here.]

I hope this helps.
 
Happy Paczki Day!
Enjoy one or ten during this tea break.

mrsild.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
4,922
Total visitors
5,107

Forum statistics

Threads
602,842
Messages
18,147,554
Members
231,549
Latest member
lilb
Back
Top