Trial Discussion Thread #23 - 14.04.11, Day 21

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
But is their premise "innocent till proven guilty" ?

Thanks

Well as the word 'prosecute' means 'to initiate civil or criminal court action against' then it stands to reason that their starting off point is that they believe the person they are bringing to court must be guilty of committing a crime otherwise they would not be prosecuting them in the first place .. and then it is the job of the defence team to defend and ensure that if a person is innocent of a crime then they are acquitted of that crime.
 
That's correct ..

.. but aren't they also still sticking to the 4 shots in quick succession thing? (double-tap now ditched) I don't think they have gone for the shot-pause-shot-shot-shot yet have they .. so why has he even needed to say that it was because of his ears ringing if he just did shot-shot-shot-shot anyway? He wouldn't even have been listening after the first shot, ears ringing or not. (.. would be grateful if someone could confirm if they are still going with the shot-shot-shot-shot in quick succesion .. but not double taps .. please )

I believe she did make some sound after the hip shot. Be it a grunt, scream or moan. I've also got experience with guns going off in my ears and from using them in military combat. In fact I maybe loosing my hearing in my right ear because of it but I'm still in denial about that.

I tend to think he would have heard her but I'm still processing that thought for now. I also think she was screaming before the firing began despite the timelines. JMO
 
Bit disorganised to keep finding they are missing documents. Different to the UK where from my experience 4 copies of the evidence ring binders have to be filed with the court several days before, 1 for the witness box, 1 for the judge and one for either side.

How often do you get an accused who changes his mind about what he's said every time he takes a breath?
 
Hmmm... another strange fact:

I'm listening to the back and forth testimony about the alarm.

It seems to me if he wanted immediate help that night, he would have opened the bedroom door and run out and tripped the alarm on purpose. That would insure immediate help coming.

So why would he turn off the alarm before he left the bedroom? That just delays help coming.
 
Why would the prosecution, who are supposed to make sure the guilty party gets prosecuted to the full extent of the law, work under the premise that the accused is innocent? The whole reason the accused is the accused is because there is enough evidence pointing to them as guilty enough to go to trial. It's the court that deems the accused as innocent until proven guilty, ergo why Nel could not call OP a liar and we're not allowed to call him an outright m.......

Oops .. snap! .. didn't see your post there, Val, but we've said virtually the same thing!
 
For reals?? I also wish she had screamed out, and I'm in NO way blaming her for what happened. I totally understand why she didn't... even though no one else appears to.

She did scream out. Witnesses heard her...not sure why they are discounted.
 
I wonder how his dog managed to get inside the house to wreak havoc downstairs , or was it already inside ?

If the alarm was activated then the dogs movement inside the house would have set it off. There is no security company board on the outside wall of his house, which is normal practice here in S.Africa, so he obviously has an alarm system, but it's not connected to any security company for patrol response if it is activated.
 
So Nel took OP through some of his crime-victim events, and OP admitted he'd never contacted police about any of them ... except for his supposedly stolen watch? No evidence whatsoever in his history to explain his supposed instant terror at the sound of a window sliding open.
 
He just said the open balcony door didn't bother him while he was awake.

But he went to sleep. Was he counting on Reeva moving all the fans and closing it before she went to sleep? He would then have been upset if he woke up and found the balcony doors still open, I would think.
 
She did scream out. Witnesses heard her...not sure why they are discounted.

I get the impression that the ear witness accounts keep being forgotten about .. probably because they were so early on in the trial.
 
Yup .. that highway incident was one of many instances cited by Nel in an important part of establishing this .. and I couldn't understand why some on here were not able to see the significance of Nel raising these types of incidents and were just saying Nel should move on to the incident of the 13/14th Feb itself.
Don't worry, I'm also confused as to why he would withhold this information, it is strange he wouldn't remember who collected/helped him etc...I have no answer to that! :) Maybe Roux will come back to that..i have no idea!
 
Hmmm... another strange fact:

I'm listening to the back and forth testimony about the alarm.

It seems to me if he wanted immediate help that night, he would have opened the bedroom door and run out and tripped the alarm on purpose. That would insure immediate help coming.

So why would he turn off the alarm before he left the bedroom? That just delays help coming.

Speaking of that bedroom------how did Reeva manage to get out of bed, make her way to the door in the dark and with all that mess on the floor, open the door and leave, without OP noticing she had left?
 
If he'd truly been as paranoid about security as he makes out, he would never have had a sliding door open without a security gate to protect it, he would have had burglar bars over all windows, he would have fixed the broken window INSTANTLY, and he would have made sure that his alarm system was working perfectly before, during and after all home renovations, and that the builders' stuff was packed away every evening. That is what paranoid people do! Relaxing in bed with a sliding door open is not typical of a person worried about security at all!
 
Found this article the other day. Found it kind of interesting. 83 per cent of South African think the police are corrupt:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/majority-of-sa-thinks-police-are-corrupt-1.1545776

“Police demand bribes each time they stop a car, and they threaten those who refuse to pay bribes.

“Police steal from houses of victims of crime when they go to their houses to get statements from the victims.

“This is not surprising as thousands of police officers have criminal records,” Kohler-Barnard said."
 
He just said the open balcony door didn't bother him while he was awake.

But he went to sleep. Was he counting on Reeva moving all the fans and closing it before she went to sleep? He would then have been upset if he woke up and found the balcony doors still open, I would think.

Yes, he says before he fell asleep he asked Reeva to do it.
 
OP recovers to say 'If I couldn't hear I couldn't hear' in response to N asking about him being deafened with his ears ringing.

Nel wants to know if it's possible a woman could have screamed then, as OP couldn't hear?

OP, in a corner insists he couldn't hear but he could hear a woman definitely NOT screaming.

Oscar replied to Nel asking if Reeva screamed after the first shot? with no, no one heard a woman screaming. Very telling. His answers are so guarded and contrived.
 
I get the impression that the ear witness accounts keep being forgotten about .. probably because they were so early on in the trial.

Nah, it's because the ones that keep "forgetting" about them wish we would too.

Anyway, sweet dreams everyone, it's 5:30am... :eek:fftobed:
 
Speaking of that bedroom------how did Reeva manage to get out of bed, make her way to the door in the dark and with all that mess on the floor, open the door and leave, without OP noticing she had left?

I can't see her getting out on her side of the bed in the dark with all the fans and cords on the floor. The only thing that I could think is she would have gotten out on his side of the bed.

And, why was she up when he woke up? He sat up in bed and she said something to him immediately.
 
Found this article the other day. Found it kind of interesting. 83 per cent of South African think the police are corrupt:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/majority-of-sa-thinks-police-are-corrupt-1.1545776

“Police demand bribes each time they stop a car, and they threaten those who refuse to pay bribes.

“Police steal from houses of victims of crime when they go to their houses to get statements from the victims.

“This is not surprising as thousands of police officers have criminal records,” Kohler-Barnard said."

wow. How is this possible? Is S. Africa that corrupt?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
1,440
Total visitors
1,587

Forum statistics

Threads
600,519
Messages
18,109,891
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top