Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[wb180]

You make an interesting point. Taking aside the paid professionals (defence council mercenaries) who will likely spout their carefully worded wisdom as intended... Following OP's horrendous testimony which reveals his story to be improbable at best and entirely fictional at worst - then would any normal reasonable people still be willing to attach themselves in support of that story and on the side of such a creaking defence?
Family - certainly, friends- probably but any DT neighbours/witnesses? - I'm not so sure at the moment.

Do not underestimate the power of people. Lance Armstrong was convicted of cheating and there r still supporters for him.

 

[zwiebel]

Now OP said he would not have seen Reeva going down passage with lit cell as 'I had my back to her'.

Nel says 'You said you never faced the bed. You would have had to face bed to have your back to the passage'.

 

[Cher352]

They're back...

Thanks I thought they had gone to lunch, had already closes my live feed window.

 

[asanque]

Nels should have asked more about where Reeva's phone was located (i.e. right hand side of the bed)

 

[zwiebel]

O: I never said my back was facing the bed. I said my back was facing the passage. I simply brought the fan in and placed it by the bed. We don't know when Reeva got up.

N: Not in your version.

 

[molly333]

I was listening to Dr. Stipp last night. He thinks he heard two sets of gunshots, with a woman screaming in between. He also heard a man.

I find this all very confusing with the witnesses. He had to have heard Oscar screaming like a woman in between the two sets of "shots" because Reeva would be dead after the first set of shots.

But, that would also mean the first three witnesses, who said the shots were at 3am, would have to be mistaken, because they all heard the woman screaming up to the shots and then quiet. But that places them listening at Dr. Stipp's second set of shots. :banghead:

 

[zwiebel]

Nel now saying that the Stipps version, the light was on.

O: That's not true - and anyway they didn't say that. They said the light was on after the shooting.

 

[zwiebel]

N: When you fired the shots, can you indicate what position you were in.....now you've got your arm in a normal shooting position.

O: That's not a normal shooting position...

 

[zwiebel]

OP seems to have held his arm in different position from the one before lunch, that he demonstrated.

 

[zwiebel]

nel now talking about the handle of the bathroom door. OP says he could see it but wasn't focused on it.

Nel asks why he didn't fire at the handle if he thought intruder was coming out?

N: Did you fire to shoot the intruder?

O: No, I fired because I got a fright.

N: So it was all an accident?

O: That's correct Milady.

 

[zwiebel]

N: Who do you blame for the accident?

O: I blame myself.

N: So you at least blame yourself for an accident. What was that?

O: I blame myself for taking Reeva's life Milady.

 

[molly333]

OP seems to have held his arm in different position from the one before lunch, that he demonstrated.

Seriously, how is he supposed to remember how he held his hand a year ago?

And, why would we ask him to do something we couldn't do ourselves?

I can't remember what I did last week, never mind whether I shouted out something before or after an action I took.

 

[G.bng]

Roux is not as nasty and threatening.

State version "emerging"??

But they have rested?

It is their burden to put a version and prove it beyond reasonable doubt?

The defense then to have an opportunity to respond.

In all seriousness... this seems nuts to me. Fine for the prosecution to cross examine and test OP's version. But it is the Sttate who have laid charges and have the burden to layout their version and prove it... beyond reasonable doubt.

Whatever version they have... I'd like to see it scrutinized and questioned... over, and over, and over, and over... in every minute detail.

The State does not have to lay out a "version"! That would be a prosecution playing with fiction when they only have, as they declared at the beginning, circumstantial evidence.

With what you are saying if the police were called to a scene and found a a man in a room with a smoking gun and a bleeding body on the floor with shots in it and the man remained silent without ever saying anything to the police, the prosecution would have to invent a whole story of what had happened to be able to charge him ?

It is the Judge who will work out from the evidence and the inferences coming out during this cross what the verdict is.

 

[molly333]

OP seems to have held his arm in different position from the one before lunch, that he demonstrated.

Seriously, how is Oscar supposed to remember how he held his hand a year ago?

And, why would we ask him to do something we couldn't do ourselves?

I can't remember what I did last week, never mind whether I shouted out something before or after an action I took.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel puts it to OP Reeva was standing behind the door. Asks OP why.

OP says he doesn't know why and it is not true Reeva was talking to him.

Judge interjects: He says he doesn't know. You can't keep on asking the same question.

Nel argues OP does know, he is concealing: He must tell us, but I'll accept what the court says and move on.

 

[Cher352]

Nel reprimanded again, think the judge is losing patience with Nel.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel moves on to OP's 'Before I knew it, I had fired four shots at the door' statement.

Much paper shuffling....

 

[kaos]

Glad to hear he finally admits some blame!

 

[minor4th]

Ugh. I hope Nel finishes up today

 

[G.bng]

O: I never said my back was facing the bed. I said my back was facing the passage. I simply brought the fan in and placed it by the bed. We don't know when Reeva got up.

N: Not in your version.

I'm sure that OP has stated very clearly that after hearing the noise he kept face on to the passage ? I remember he even said he hadn't even turned to speak to Reeva to not lose sight of the passage.