I think you're missing some of the undertones and the meaning behind this questioning. If these two got together and scripted their accounts, then they are not very reliable'
I agree, also, my understanding of this:That's kind of a good point - they said they thought the husband was shot until they heard the news about OP. Now, however, they testify about the fear and mortal danger conveyed in the woman's screams.
Charl just said that they thought the husband was shot because they heard the wife screaming after the shots ended. That is what they feel certain about, but it has now come out through yesterday's witness that it was actually Oscar crying and screaming after the shots ended. Given that, I don't think we can really rely on their statements about a woman screaming before and during the shooting either.
You woke wife up by jumping out of bed, not wakened by screams, in your version, says Roux. Johnson confirms.
I think you are confusing the meaning behind Roux fishing expedition here.. his agenda is plain, and necessary for his client.. but Charl is merely stating what he heard, and even though this is inconvenient for Roux and his client, Charl is re stating and re re stating his position.. as a witness should
I agree, also, my understanding of this:
is that she was in fact NOT woken up by screams as she testified but by her husband jumping out of bed when he heard screaming????
Seriously, how can you be certain this witness and his wife are 100% accurate and truthful in their statements when it is clear they have misinterpreted some of the screams and the sequence of events?
And at the same time be so absolutely certain that Oscar has lied about everything he said and he must have killed her in cold blood?
<modsnip>.
Who says they have misinterpreted some of the screams?? you and Roux.. no one else.. this is merely your opinion that they have misinterpreted.. lets find out what the judge finds..
Doesn't matter what my conclusions are, does it?? Im not the judge.