But on the balance of things, OP needs more than just 5 witnesses that heard something else, he needs 5 witnesses that heard something completely different.
He doesn't need that at all.
But on the balance of things, OP needs more than just 5 witnesses that heard something else, he needs 5 witnesses that heard something completely different.
Exactly. Why would he lie about that?
...........and he even "adds" that little detail of covering the blue little light with Reeva's jeans......so were Reeva's jeans still there when police got there? Somehow I don't it.
I suggest that he insists there were 2 fans because there were 2 fans and not because it is a lie and there must be some unspoken motive for it.
It doesn't make sense because of your assumption that it's false.
I don't know but he did lie about it. I think it's one of those things that now he has said it, he can't take it back.
I think he added the 2nd fan in to give Reeva more "time" to go the bathroom without him noticing.
But problem is, he can't "take it back" now. Or else his whole story will be exposed as a lie.
It's just like with Jodi and the 3rd gas can.
JMO.
How does the lack of bangs to break down door, after last 'bangs' that match ballistics and stopped the female screams, correlate? And why would Oscar, in minute detail, tell us how he pried the panel out with the bat? He only said he 'hit' the door and a panel came out. So who pried with the bat?
Does anyone seriously still entertain the idea that he is telling the truth?.
I'm not "thinking thinking thinking." The evidence is that one bang had to be the gunshots and one the cricket bat. According to Dr. Stipp, they sounded the same. There is a compelling demonstration on YT that really makes it very believable to me that they could sound exactly the same from a distance. One was only duller, but the sounds were identical. No discrepancies. It's perfectly logical.
All these other theories and yet the state has not even said what they think the two sets of bangs could have been. Fascinating.
Why would he add such an inconsequential detail? What exactly could he be hiding?
The jeans were found next to the duvet.
No. A pair of jeans were found next to the duvet. A feminine looking pair of jeans with a white belt in the belt loops was found on the ground outside and under the bathroom window area.
who is this YT clip compelling to? is it evidence?? has it been tabled as such?? .. is this the evidence that Oscar will bring to the table as supporting his story??
compelling to whom, is really the key here.. compelling to people whose experience of both sounds is wide and long or ?? compelling to Judge Masipa and the Assessors??
Why would he add such an inconsequential detail? What exactly could he be hiding?
The jeans were found next to the duvet.
He added that because he knew with that light on his story would make no sense. If that light was such a bother....why wasn't it covered all along. Those lights are pretty bright and he should have been able to see Reeva clearly. IMO
Oscar didn't say he pried the panel out with the bat. Vermuelen said that. Oscar said he broke the door, a piece came off and he used his hands to break the panels.
There were two sets of bangs.
One set of bangs was gunshots, the other set of bangs was not gunshots.
There's no evidence or suggestion or testimony of any possibilities for those bangs other than gunshots and cricket bat hitting the door.
The gunshots had to have happened before the cricket bat hit and broke the door.
Ergo - the first set of loud bangs must have been the gunshots and the second set of loud bangs must have been the cricket bat hitting the door.
Ergo - the screaming after the first set of loud bangs was not Reeva because she was dead.
That's as plainly as I can put it.
Uh Huh. And how do those jeans relate to the jeans he was trying to cover the light with?
He doesn't need that at all.
But clearly, the light was never covered. He was going to cover but heard the sound before he could. How does this help his story?
Reality is not decided by a voteBut on the balance of things, OP needs more than just 5 witnesses that heard something else, he needs 5 witnesses that heard something completely different.
OK, if so then what new witness evidense does he need to overcome the existing witness evidence?
What about the evidence that there was really no where to plug it in, unless somewhere where he would have tripped over it or clearly remembered where he plug in it.
Basically he is a liar, it has been clearly shown many times, and the Judge is going to give him Guilty.
JMO.