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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
He keeps making meandering statements and then asking witness 'You want to comment on that?'

WTH?
 
It's not the witness's duty to help the accused, despite what Roux might say or desire.

It's her duty to testify as to what she witnessed.
 
Judge - 'Mr Roux, I really think you have exhausted this.'
 
why should she make concessions? He is trying to twist her words and make her seem unreliable. I think it is admirable that she is holding her ground.

I think I would know if I heard gunshots vs a cricket bat against a door. Or the difference between a man and woman screaming in terror. And I would not concede to an attorney that I was mistaken either.
 
Roux isn't asking the witness questions, he is making argument... with the witness no less.


I would flat out ask the attorney if he is asking me a question or just making statements.
 
Something to keep in mind - since this is being tried to a judge and not a jury, the evidence is going to be presented in a different way than we are used to. Unlike a jury, the judge is supposed to be able to sort out what's relevant and what's not and to give everything the proper weight. There is no concern about prejudicing a jury, so there's more argument mixed in with the presentation of evidence
 
'But shortly after the shots, the shouts died out'

Roux - 'I'm coming to that!'

Gulp. Defence is making a hash of this. Witness is so credible and firm.
 
minor4th said:
Another explanation is that the witness' account is not entirely accurate. We have two accounts - one from Pistorius and one from Burger, and they don't match. I think it will become clear which version is more likely when we hear from some more witnesses and determine if their accounts line up with either Oscar's story of the Burger's.

If Oscar killed her on purpose, then obviously he has motive to lie, so you have to automatically be suspicious of his account. On the other hand, there are problems with Burger - she was a considerable distance from Oscar's house and she collected information and got her story straight with her husband for a couple of weeks before she gave a statement to police. Even so, her testimony in court is more embellished than her statement given to police.

It's too early in the trial to decide who's credible and who's not. So far, there is much speculation about what Oscar's motive could have been - but so far there has been no evidence or reports that corroborate the speculation.
Click to expand...
BBM - except that she told her husband to call security that same night before she could possibly have collected any information. There must be a record of what security was told at the time.
 
Describing Reeva's injuries now - Oscar bows head, puts hands over ears.
 
Nel just proved Roux lies all the time, it seems.
Head shot was the last while Roux tried to imply it was first.
 
Roux is shady and sneaky. First he ambushes the witness w/the medical report, saying the victim was dropped instantly by gunshot to head. And implies she was wrong about the woman shouting because of that.

Then the state reads the report and points out that it was not the first shot, so she could have screamed. Roux is sneaky.
 
Defence trying to say it's not important the order in which Reeva was shot now. Pros isn't having it. Insists wounds should be stated in order they happened - killer shot to the head was the last one.
 
katydid23 said:
why should she make concessions? He is trying to twist her words and make her seem unreliable. I think it is admirable that she is holding her ground.

I think I would know if I heard gunshots vs a cricket bat against a door. Or the difference between a man and woman screaming in terror. And I would not concede to an attorney that I was mistaken either.
Click to expand...

She doesn't have to concede that she was mistaken - she just has to concede that she can't compare what a gunshot and a cricket bat sound like. He's making a nuanced point for the judge about her credibility.

When a witness is so dogmatic and so committed to their story, even when presented with hypotheticals or additional evidence, it makes them seem like they have an agenda and it tends to undermine their credibility.

I think she would come across as more believable if she conceded certain possibilities based on what he's presenting to her. The prosecutor will have a chance to question her and firm up her testimony, so I don't think it helps her to dig in and come across as being biased or motivated by an agenda.
 
katydid23 said:
Roux is shady and sneaky. First he ambushes the witness w/the medical report, saying the victim was dropped instantly by gunshot to head. And implies she was wrong about the woman shouting because of that.

Then the state reads the report and points out that it was not the first shot, so she could have screamed. Roux is sneaky.
Click to expand...

Whether the head shot was the first or last, this witness says that she heard the woman screaming after the gunshots ended. That seems impossible if there was a shot to the head that immediately incapacitated Reeva.
 
Roux is being ridiculous about asking her when she went to shooting range. I am sure she has seen films, and knows what gunshots sound like.
 
This new medical report on the order of the shooting, may be very detrimental to OP.

If he is guilty of PM, could (hypothetically say) the following have occurred?

He only stopped shooting because he knew she was now fatally wounded?
And this implies he could see her.

What do you think of this?
 
She floored defence! She heard her brother break down a door with a karate kick and it sounded nothing like a gunshot!

Defence not expecting that. Long pause...
 
soozieqtips said:
BBM - except that she told her husband to call security that same night before she could possibly have collected any information. There must be a record of what security was told at the time.
Click to expand...

Apparently there is not. There was something about her calling security but calling the wrong number and then the husband calling the correct security company. There has been very little information about this so I'm assuming there is no recording or transcript.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 527 (members: 69, guests: 458)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
458
Total visitors
527
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,466
Messages
18,239,823
Members
234,378
Latest member
Moebi69
Back
Top