Trial Discussion Thread #19 - 14.04.07, Day 17

[MeeBee]

No but added into the long list of other things that do not add up in OP's story it makes a complete picture.

I see that in order to believe OP's story bits and pieces are taken out and explained away. However when looked at as a whole, the story simply falls apart. That will be OP's downfall IMO. The judge is not going to take things bit by bit but as a whole. If this was a jury trial then OP might stand a chance of walking. I don't see how the defense pandering to the judge will work in their favor.

MOO

See that's the thing.

Taking bits and pieces of his story convinced me of his guilt not so long ago. But taken as a whole, his story works for me. It makes total sense. Funny, that.

 

[TorisMom003]

I had a good laugh at this part of OP's bail application statement:

"I am not disposed to violence."

Perhaps OP should have expanded on that statement.

He isn't disposed to violence unless:
police touch his gun during a traffic stop,
he gets bored in a crowded restaurant,
he gets ticked that people aren't leaving his house in a hurry when he tells them to,
a girlfriend has the nerve to talk to and touch another man,
etc

MOO

 

[Carol70]

Yes, wounds on her back, front and the bullet hole on her hip. They were tight pictures, meaning you could only see the immediate wound not a full body shot.

They did unfortunately flash a picture of her head on the screen which I did see. It was partially covered by Van Aardt's head. I always get butterflies in my stomach (not the good ones obviously!) the first time injuries are shown. Very sad.

Lisa, will you have the pics up on your blog by any chance???

 

[kaos]

His confrontation of the carjackers at the 'robots' seems to contradict his "fear for his life" portrayal too as he's seemingly quite comfortable pointing a gun at people who could very well have killed him too.

 

[Magdalyn]

Here is an example to what I was referring to:

http://www.henryagiroux.com/online_articles/racism_and_aesthetic.htm




Cinema and the Culture of Violence
American cinema has increasingly provided a site of convergence for depicting both the inner city "reality" of black-on-black youth violence and for promoting a renewed "acceptability and/or tolerance of straightforward racist doctrine." Recent films focusing on black urban violence such as Boys N the Hood(1991), Juice (1992), Menace II Society(1993), Sugar Hill(1994), and Fresh(1994) have attracted national media coverage because they do not simply represent contemporary urban realities but also reinforce the popular perception that everyday black urban life and violent crime mutually define each other. Cinema appears to be providing a new language and aesthetic in which the city becomes the central site for social disorder and violence, and black youth in particular, become agents of crime, pathology, and moral decay.

I'd like to think that most adults are well aware that movies and tv shows are not a great indicator and reflector of reality.

The movies listed were either written by African Americans, and/or directed by African Americans, and all were acted in by consenting African Americans. If these movies are a misrepresentation and negatively reflect urban (city) realities, there is no one to blame but the writers, directors and actors. Writers, directors and actors should take responsibility and start responsibly depicting reality.

All right, I think I've moseyed as far from the main topic we were discussing as is likely allowed. I'll give myself a time out so ya'll can get back on track! :truce:

 

[soozieqtips]

I had a good laugh at this part of OP's bail application statement:

"I am not disposed to violence."

Perhaps OP should have expanded on that statement.

He isn't disposed to violence unless:
police touch his gun during a traffic stop,
he gets bored in a crowded restaurant,
he gets ticked that people aren't leaving his house in a hurry when he tells them to,
a girlfriend has the nerve to talk to and touch another man,
etc

MOO

Haha. Maybe it was a typo and should have read not 'opposed' to violence.

 

[seattlechiquita]

I had a good laugh at this part of OP's bail application statement:

"I am not disposed to violence."

Perhaps OP should have expanded on that statement.

He isn't disposed to violence unless:
police touch his gun during a traffic stop,
he gets bored in a crowded restaurant,
he gets ticked that people aren't leaving his house in a hurry when he tells them to,
a girlfriend has the nerve to talk to and touch another man,
etc

MOO

Glad to know I was not the only one to complete LOL at that. His testimony today was one of the most self-serving, self-centered depositions I have heard in my years following true crime.

 

[whiterum]

Unless one is a mind reader then one can not know exactly why Nel brought that up. One could also say that it points to OP NOT being worried about intruders breaking into his home and that he felt safe enough to have the broken window fixed at some later date.

MOO

He knew the ladders were outside too , why not take a few minutes and stick them in his garage and lock the door , simple !!

 

[TorisMom003]

Another part of the bail application statement that should have been expanded on:

"I respectfully submit that should I be released on bail, my release shall not disturb the public order or undermine the proper functioning of the criminal justice system."

Unless I hear another window being opened in a bathroom and decide that it must be an intruder that I have to shoot and kill even though it could be my Uncle deciding to take a leak in the middle of the night.

Unless another person decides to touch and unload my gun.

Unless someone else decides to follow my car, by chance just going in the same direction that I am, and I confront them.

Unless I get bored yet again at another restaurant.

Unless someone ticks me off in some way, fashion or form.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

He knew the ladders were outside too , why not take a few minutes and stick them in his garage and lock the door , simple !!

He doesn't do manual labor?

It wasn't his job?

Or, and probably the truth, he didn't think about it because he isn't worried about security at all.

MOO

 

[Viper]

Actually, if you know the story of the Waterkloof 4, the boys were recently paroled, 2 of them landed back in jail a week later when cell videos emerged of them drinking, using cell phones, listening to music and having a grand old time in their cell. Even I was surprised to see they had a pc, telly and a host of luxuries while supposedly serving time for murder.

Good, glad to learn that. I'm sure that OP will enjoy all of the many luxuries that the SA prison system offers. :smile:

 

[whiterum]

I had a good laugh at this part of OP's bail application statement:

"I am not disposed to violence."

Perhaps OP should have expanded on that statement.

He isn't disposed to violence unless:
police touch his gun during a traffic stop,
he gets bored in a crowded restaurant,
he gets ticked that people aren't leaving his house in a hurry when he tells them to,
a girlfriend has the nerve to talk to and touch another man,
etc

MOO

Didn't he also threaten to break some guys legs !

 

[Carol70]

Good, glad to learn that. I'm sure that OP will enjoy all of the many luxuries that the SA prison system offers. :smile:

Lol Yar no shame..poor guy!

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I'm not being sexist but maybe OP thought about the broken window the same way as I do. It's not any easier to get into that house with the window like it is than if it was a full window. An open window, yes. A hole in a window, no. All burglars could do is blow through it and make noises.

Now if someone can explain to me how this window is easier to get in than a second floor open window, I may come around to another way of thinking.

Until such time, I really think it's being overplayed because it didn't have the required result that some wanted it to have in the case.

According to our local beat bobby who is a friend of ours a broken window is always an additional risk because something can easily be put through to open the locking catch .
I haven't been able to see this hole but if it was big enough for a cricket ball to go through then it was big enough for an arm or another implement to gain access . The ground floor is often the first place intruders aim for to search for cars keys etc

 

[soozieqtips]

Nel can't be seen to cut OP any slack whatsoever, no matter how much distraction OP causes with all his dramatics. This is his most crucial witness, the only person left alive who can answer questions. If Nel doesn't grill him over every single detail (no matter how insignificant it may seem) then he's not doing his job. So I think it will be no holds barred because that's the only way he's going to crack OP. And Roux was no angel...

 

[steveml]

According to our local beat bobby who is a friend of ours a broken window is always an additional risk because something can easily be put through to open the locking catch .
I haven't been able to see this hole but if it was big enough for a cricket ball to go through then it was big enough for an arm or another implement to gain access . The ground floor is often the first place intruders aim for to search for cars keys etc

To reach that conclusion you have to presume so many things about the window. You have to presume it was an opening window, you have to presume that the catch is not out of reach. Most windows have security locks nowadays. You have to presume that the glass wouldn't smash if this was attempted. The PT won't have missed this. We haven't seen the window inside and out, but they have.
If it's relevant they bring it into play, if not, they move on.

 

[MeeBee]

LOL, for sure!

I saw someone mention earlier about "who throws a cricket ball around a glass window"? (sorry, cant remember who it was). I have a son and boys IMO, are destructive. He has managed to send a dining table through a glass window while arm wrestling with a friend (don't ask :facepalm: ) and he threw a smallish rock in the yard that landed up going through a "shatterproof" glass door. I find nothing strange about tossing a cricket ball around a garden.

Lmao! ...a dining table how does that even happen?

:floorlaugh:

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm not being sexist but maybe OP thought about the broken window the same way as I do. It's not any easier to get into that house with the window like it is than if it was a full window. An open window, yes. A hole in a window, no. All burglars could do is blow through it and make noises.

Now if someone can explain to me how this window is easier to get in than a second floor open window, I may come around to another way of thinking.

Until such time, I really think it's being overplayed because it didn't have the required result that some wanted it to have in the case.

I've always thought the hole in the windows was a red herring and completely irrelevant. I suggested an air rifle pellet but he would have been stupid aiming, even at tins, in the direction of the house, so not really a probability. Maybe window cleaners but IMO totally irrelevant to the current situation. He may be asked how it happened and we may get an answer but not what some would like to believe.

 

[lisasalinger]

Lisa, will you have the pics up on your blog by any chance???

Yes. Everything that is shown in court will be posted on my blog later today. I know it's a bit sensitive but I don't believe in censorship, especially with trials.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

To reach that conclusion you have to presume so many things about the window. You have to presume it was an opening window, you have to presume that the catch is not out of reach. Most windows have security locks nowadays. You have to presume that the glass wouldn't smash if this was attempted. The PT won't have missed this. We haven't seen the window inside and out, but they have.
If it's relevant they bring it into play, if not, they move on.

I haven't reached a conclusion and haven't presumed anything have just put a theory why a broken window can be a security risk. Clearly the defence felt the need to address it . I will wait until after the trial is over before I make my final conclusions.
But if it was my house I would have had it boarded up immediately .