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

[zwiebel]

Charl didn't really answer question Roux just put to him about similarities in their testimony, and Roux's called him on it. Not good.

 

[zwiebel]

All centering around shots/scream and what was heard, in what order.

 

[minor4th]

Charl is coming across better than his wife did IMO - he is not acting defensive and is not trying to argue with the attorney or go into long unsolicited explanations.

I think the lawyer is making some points here about the husband and wife show up in court and use the exact same words to describe things that were not even in their written police statements.

ETA: I spoke too soon because now Charl is falling apart.

 

[zwiebel]

'Yesterday you testified a small pause between shots. In your statement you talk of a volley of shots. Is that a coincidence?'

Long pause, witness struggles and once again answers, but not the actual question.

 

[minor4th]

Charl is getting a little rattled and he's not really answering the questions about the exact same language being used by husband and wife in their testimony, after having stated that he specifically avoided reading her statements or getting information about what his wife said when she testified. These two clearly got together and got their stories straight

 

[TigerBalm]

Judge asking Roux if he isn't going a bit too far.

Thank you m'lady!

 

[minor4th]

Hahaha. Roux just commented on Charl's prefacing his comment with "honestly" = saying that gives him even more suspicion about the truthfulness.

 

[Carol70]

Charl is getting a little rattled and he's not really answering the questions about the exact same language being used by husband and wife in their testimony, after having stated that he specifically avoided reading her statements or getting information about what his wife said when she testified. These two clearly got together and got their stories straight

Was just going to comment, and here is where its all going to go pear shaped!!

10:08 - Roux pounces on Johnson's last statement. "That was in her evidence and not her statement!" he says to Johnson of wife's evidence. "I must stop you - you don't know what you're doing to yourself…" Roux says

 

[squeaky]

I find the aggressiveness of this lawyer astounding. It can be uncomfortable to watch at times, but it is always quite captivating. Having flashbacks of watching live OJ trial coverage, but the intricacies of South African law makes the Oscar trial unusually engaging. In my opinion OP looks pretty guilty, if for no other reason than the simple fact that his version of things aren't as believable as the alternative.

 

[minor4th]

Judge asking Roux if he isn't going a bit too far.

Thank you m'lady!

I was wondering when the judge would stop him or the other attorney would object. Roux was sure going to keep traveling down that path until someone stopped him. He made his point though

 

[zwiebel]

Roux is really attacking the credibility of witness. Outright accusing him and his wife of making their statements fit together. Witness said 'I honestly believe' and Roux said he shoukd have been honest from the beginning, why bring up the word?

 

[zwiebel]

Roux just twisted witness's not counting shots to mean he could not hear them. Naughty.

 

[minor4th]

Roux is really attacking the credibility of witness. Outright accusing him and his wife of making their statements fit together. Witness said 'I honestly believe' and Roux said he shoukd have been honest from the beginning, why bring up the word?

It may seem aggressive, but it's necessary to really get to the credibility of this witness and his wife. I mean, what are the chances that they will both independently testify using the exact same words and descriptions when none of these things were previously in their police statements.

They are husband and wife - they live together every day. It is stupid for him to say that they never discussed it or influenced each other's perception/account. That doesn't make them bad people or liars, but it shows that their testimony now may not be completely accurate and independent.

 

[Trooper]

I don't perceive Charl as rattled at all.... he refers his answers to the judge, and right now, he calmly asks for a question to be repeated... Roux doesn't ask the questions with any brevity or logical order..

 

[Trooper]

ha...now ROUX is rattled

 

[zwiebel]

Roux tried to pursue the line, 'You said other people would have heard more clearly, so that implies you didn't hear clearly' but then just dropped it.

I've got cars driving through the court in backgrnd of my live feed.....

 

[whiterum]

I have to turn off and get on with my day now. Roux's smarmy voice is seriously doing my head in. I will tape and watch later before my TV ends smashed into smithereens LOL.

 

[Trooper]

Charl quite calm and composed in his replies... the trouble is, that Roux doesn't want this evidence to register. For a very good reason.

 

[Trooper]

Roux does NOT want this testimony to have feet and walk.. it simply goes to the heart of his ciients story and rips it to shreds

 

[minor4th]

Charl quite calm and composed in his replies... the trouble is, that Roux doesn't want this evidence to register. For a very good reason.

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.