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

[Trooper]

heh. Roux doesn't like the witnesses style of thinking.. bad luck..

 

[zwiebel]

Roux just pointed out witness first thought at hearing screams was it was a burglary, not domestic violence, even though it's a safe area.

 

[Trooper]

Roux is trying to psychoanalyse the witness, in a rather amateur way.. he is fishing.. he admits he is making assumptions, but he wants to get this witness to change his testimony.. to anything other than what he is saying.

 

[zwiebel]

'My interpretation was that these people were being attacked in their house.'

 

[Trooper]

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 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

 

[zwiebel]

Roux getting to the heart of it - they thought the husband had been shot, so woman's screams didn't really sound like she was in danger.

 

[minor4th]

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.

 

[Trooper]

roux is desperate to make those gunshots into cricket bat sounds.. not going to get off the ground...

 

[zwiebel]

Ah! Roux has just 'proved' witness hearing gunshots was exact time Oscar says he was breaking down door.

 

[zwiebel]

'Milady, I'm convinced the sounds that I heard were gunshots and that is my testimony.'

 

[Carol70]

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.

I agree, also, my understanding of this:

You woke wife up by jumping out of bed, not wakened by screams, in your version, says Roux. Johnson confirms.

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????

 

[minor4th]

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

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>

 

[Trooper]

not gonna work, Roux... why is one witnesses belief that it was a womans cries, and one witnesses belief it was a mans cries... up to the judge which one she puts the weighting on.

Charl is convinced he heard a man and a woman screaming and that's that, folks

 

[zwiebel]

Roux, again and again to witness - 'I understaaand that, I understaand that'

 

[minor4th]

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????

That is a discrepancy in their statements. They can't both be true, so one of them is mistaken.

 

[zwiebel]

Roux asking questions that are not even questions. Witness cannot answer them of course. Strange.

 

[Trooper]

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.

 

[zwiebel]

'You did not hear the bashing of a door after the shots'

'Milady, that is correct.'

 

[minor4th]

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.

I'm just curious how you cannot see the discrepancies in their statements and their collaboration and embellishment since their police statements.

It's not just me and Roux saying they have misinterpreted - it could not have factually occurred in the new embellished manner they are now describing. If they heard screams after the shooting stopped, it could not have been Reeva, although it is quite clear that is what they believe.

 

[Trooper]

If I may add, minor.. how can you be seriously suggesting that Roux knows more than the witness..?? Roux wasn't there.. his story comes from Oscar.. correct?? of course, Roux has to challenge this witness and others on their testimony.. doesn't mean he knows more than they do.. he HOPES he can persuade the judge that he does, and that all these witnesses with testimony of hearing cries before the shots are mistaken, or misinterpreting.. but this is his job to do.. you , claiming to be an attorney should know that.. doesn't mean its true though.. means that Roux is doing the job he is collecting a fee for..nothing more than that.