jilly
Registered User
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 7,989
- Reaction score
- 53
yeah, LOL and Nel forgot that part in his first questioning......had to bring it up later.......geesh.
:banghead:
yeah, LOL and Nel forgot that part in his first questioning......had to bring it up later.......geesh.
:banghead:
when the guard was speaking to OP on the phone, what language were they speaking?
I ask because of the confusion over the terms OK vs FINE. If one is translating from english, those terms are interchangeable. So I don't understand why Roux was making such a big issue of those two words.
I must say that I find this trial VERY hard to follow - perhaps as a cultural difference. As I'm used to ask/answer without obfuscation. So many compound questions by the defense attorney that is being attempted to answer and doesn't answer what I thought was being asked is VERY confusing.
Again, this must be a difference in cultures? Or is it a difference in folks that I associate with? Dunno.
I think the Ex testimony was simply to show that he was reckless with his gun. She is only a young girl - a teenager that he dated.
I found the doctor to be very credible. Interesting that he was awakened to 3 gunshot sounding bangs, then continued to hear woman screaming with man, then heard 3 additional gun shot sounding bangs. So, what really happened? He admitted that the head wound was fatal. So, if he heard a woman screaming after the first gunshots, then the final blow had not happened yet!
I think OP was a hot head who had rages. Her parents said they had never met him, but were surprised when the two did not spend the Christmas holiday together (implying a possible argument) and then upset when she called her Mom from his car saying he was driving recklessly. They went on to say that she was not one to be controlled, and I wonder if that OP couldn't control her and that is why this happened. Her Ex said that he had recently run into her, and they went to lunch. OP called twice in 20 min and he asked her if everything was okay. The Ex continued to text message her after the lunch - which may have lead to a fight that night on the eve of Valentines Day.
excerpted quote:
I'll take a shot at it. OP's bathroom windows are at the very back of his house on the left; they look out onto the open field. Stipp's home is directly across the open field from those windows.
Yeah, he's been ordered to stay at his uncle's house and not return home.
P.S. I do find it kind of gross that he was dating a 17 year old. How old was he at the time?
If you take each witness, individually, you can see where Roux was able to poke some holes in their testimony. In that context, he did a great job. But after a week of witness testimony, if you look at the entire week's testimony as a whole, then OP is in big trouble. I think in the big picture, as a whole, they have painted a picture of an entitled, reckless, arrogant tyrant, who was most likely angry at Reeva, and not going after a phantom burglar at all. :moo:
Yes, the whole incident at the bar was reckless, but it was also unintentional - as opposed to the shots out of the car that Samantha testified about.
He admitted he shot her because he shot her. Why try to impute some kind of motive?
Truth be told, I found Samantha's testimony full of nonsense. I'm actually shocked that Roux didn't lay into her. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out post about why but I literally rolled my eyes when I read that when they were pulled off by police, OP was asked to step out the vehicle (why?? He was not the driver who was speeding) and secondly...who the hell shouts at a South African policeman and gets to drive off?? The only conclusion I can come to as to why OP might have been "angry" and they were allowed to drive off was because the officer solicited a bribe and OP paid it, (naturally this won't be brought up in court as it opens a whole can of worms)...you actually get arrested for speeding in this country, nevermind shouting at police, they don't care who you are..even esteemed members of our society have had the joy of being escorted to the state hotel for speeding. Ithe bribe is the only conclusion I can come up with as to why Roux didn't follow on with this. And SA metro are notorious for soliciting on the spot bribes, it's actually a huge problem in Jhb/Pretoria.
Sorry guys, I have found all the witnesses plausible so far, maybe not agreeing but definitely possibilities but not ST. She is full of it! And really, who drives around in the city you live in and not know where you are or at least ask where are we going??? I don't think roux is finished with her!
am I wrong in assuming Reeva was a few years older than OP?
I would just like to say here that as a non-driver myself when I am a passenger in a car, I pay no attention to where we are or the route taken...and I don't know the roads or districts well at all where I live for this reason even though I have lived here for a number of years. I didn't find anything odd about this part of her evidence at allI do, however agree strongly with a point you made in another post, that they seem to skirt over some apparently important questions and go into other apparently trivial points in tedious drawn out detail...quite baffling at times, and certainly frustrating.
Minor, what about the other witness who testified previously that OP was careless with a gun..in a bar? I think the judge may take into account his air of entitlement due to his celebrity status. His ex girlfriend's testimony relates to this..plus his lies?
Maybe some of her other testimony could be sour grapes, but there seems to be a theme of a certain kind of behavior that is not in OP's favor.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk