PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,721
:tyou: zwiebel and christee for the retweets and court transcripts.
This witness really helped the Defense's case IMO. It seems unlikely that OP used the cricket bat while on his stumps.
But didn't Mangena's report determine OP fired without his prosthetics on which is the State's case?
Maybe. I think it is the State's case that he was on his stumps throughout the incident though, so this is what the judge will have to consider. Perhaps Nel will suggest he had his prosthesis on the entire time - it would make more sense.It is also very unlikely he was ever on his stumps during the whole incident...
I don't think he absolutely excluded the possibility that OP had them on.
The defence didn't want the evaluation in the first place so I don't know why they would be disappointed.
But further, you are jumping the gun somewhat. We don't know the full evaluation hasn't found he suffers from an anxiety disorder since all that has been disclosed so far is that OP does not suffer from "mental illness or defect" that affects his appreciation of wrongfulness generally, or that could have affected his appreciation of wrongfulness that night. That's all we know so far from the report none of which means he doesn't have any mental condition or personality disorders, and the fact prosecution and defence have sort of reserved the right to refer to it and dispute other parts of it would appear to show there are other conditions reported just that these would not have affected his appreciation of wrongfulness that or any other night.
Roux is making a huge histrionic hullaballoo out of the extension cord mystery. I think he is trying to make the cops appear crooked and inept.
Maybe. I think it is the State's case that he was on his stumps throughout the incident though, so this is what the judge will have to consider. Perhaps Nel will suggest he had his prosthesis on the entire time - it would make more sense.
Sometimes facts ARE dry. Thankfully, I'm guessing facts about acoustics and decibels will for this judge trump opinions and emotions about The Screams.
Maybe it isn't just a hullaballoo but a necessary move. IMO it is important since Nel used that cable, or rather a photo of it, as a major piece of evidence to prove OP's story when he returned to the bedroom couldn't possibly be true since according to Nel the cable wasn't long enough to plug into where OP said it had been.
I recall Roux objected to Nel using a photo as "proof" the cable wasn't long enough (quite rightly since it is impossible to judge from a photo) and I believe the Judge sided with Roux but in the end allowed Nel to continue the line of questioning on the basis he would enter the cable and its measurements into evidence, or something like that but IMBW. But if neither cable nor forensic measurements of the cable and the distance from fan to the wall have been entered into evidence then Roux is obliged to get the cable barred so that Nel's argument about the cable not being long enough proving OP's version as false will be struck from the record, i.e. no cable, no measurements = no evidence so Masipa would not be able to consider it a fact. Nel would do exactly the same if the boot were on the other foot.
If anyone recalls the episode of the cable better than I or has a link, please do.
So Roux's team had the key from Stander. Could Stander or Roux's team have removed it OR perhaps OP's housekeeper has moved it. There were sound tests done, did those doing the sound tests use it and remove it. It seems the house has now been emptied due to its sale. So who removed everything?
Maybe. I think it is the State's case that he was on his stumps throughout the incident though, so this is what the judge will have to consider. Perhaps Nel will suggest he had his prosthesis on the entire time - it would make more sense.
I think My Lady is showing a bit of bias in favor of Roux here. She is acting like this lost cord is a major federal crime. If the key to the house was given to Stander, then anyone could have taken it. Not necessary to assume the cops were to blame.
I don't know why anyone would give any more credence to the testimony of an "expert" professional witness who has been coached and is being compensated by the defense than they would give to the voluntary testimony of impartial bystanders. Both can be misleading, of course, but sometimes opinions and emotions are also based on facts and in the case of OP's neighbor's-- they can at least state that they were actually present and personally experienced in real time the "facts" they are reporting.
Being devoid of emotional content does not necessarily make something more rational or true. And as we have all endured, the most emotional testimony in this trial has come from the defendant.
But Mangena's ballistics report and the therefore the State's case claims otherwise, doesn't it? Or did I miss something ?
Neighbors heard....something. They interpreted what they heard. That's what people do. If you live close enough to neighbors to hear loud something's, as I do, then you most likely have had the experience of hearing a loud something and assuming it was something other than what it was in reality.
I've heard what I thought was a child screaming in pain, rushed outside and saw instead a child screaming with joy as his dad roughhoused with him on the lawn. I've heard loud "arguments, " thought a husband and wife were fighting, and then have realized they were outside with friends drinking beer and playing charades.
Neighbors can act in good faith and get it very wrong, as so many eyewitnesses do.
The emotionalism I referred to wasn't in any case that of the neighbors.. And to repeat, yes, imo it is mighty refreshing to hear an expert talk about what is scientifically possible to hear, rather than to rehash speculations built upon other speculations about what was heard or not heard.
Bit of a side question... does anyone know the name of the blond lawyer that sits below the Judge? (the clerk/assistant)