Witness seems very knowledgable. Typical defense attorney stuff, trying to make the expert sound as if they lack knowledge through their own confidence and bravado when it is really they, the attorneys who don't understand.
Cpt: I don't specialize in sounds. I won't be able to differentiate the sounds.
In reply to R asking if he conducted sound tests.
R asks for five mins to get something. I think he needs to regroup/rethink his cross. Swot up the entire history of ballistics maybe?
There was a dodgy moment there where R was trying to dig dirt on what state based their ballistics evidence on at the bail hearing, as it is obviously rather different from what is being presented now....
From prior thread:
1. I was not praising her, but I did observe that she tended to favor the defense.
2. I am not a "CDA" as I have stated, and I believe that there have been admonitions about personalizing posts in such manner.
3. I have absolutely ZERO stake in whether OP is found guilty or acquitted of all charges. I am interested in what the evidence shows.
4. He did not refuse to call the police - he called Stander at 3:19 and asked him to call ambulance; he called Netcare at 3:20; He called security at 3:21. He was not trying to hide what had happened.
And a person's actions after the fact are not typically evidence of premeditation in any event - actions after the fact can be seen as "consciousness of guilt" if they are obviously designed to misdirect an investigation or to prevent the discovery of potentially criminal acts and evidence. That did not happen here - not even a little bit.
They're back. Roux explaining what evidence defence experts will give.
Cpt: Milady, that will be their version.