Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 16,722
I have now watched the redirect but can only see that Nel refers to one small mark where he claims it could have happened before the shots. So it does infer there could have been some small damage to the door before the shots. I can still see why some feel that the State's position is that the bat noise may have been after the gun shots. I don't think Nel made enough of the damage to the door to refute Oscar's claims. Nel did not bring up any evidence in the redirect of the other marks on the door being made before the shots in order to take his point further. Perhaps he is "keeping his powder dry" for the summing up (I know summing up is not the correct term but I cannot for the life of me at this moment think what I should be writing).
Edit I would like to point out that (for those who perhaps don't know me) I am firmly in the bats before gunshot court. However, I do feel Nel has not made it abundantly clear what he thinks and others may, and some do, think otherwise.
For the life of me I cannot see how it can be proved whether the door was hit by the bat before the shots were fired. If the bat struck the door in different places from the bullets, how could anyone tell? Just because the bat may have been used after the shots causing the crack, it doesn't mean it couldn't have been used before as well.