Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The term is Argumentative. Judge Masipa set him straight.

Yes, exactly. Again, not very subtly. Pretty straightforward, IMO. If you don't act proper in a court of law then the judge will give you what for.
 
The guy on whooptv who was the original reporter of the Arnu Fourie incident has stated that the arguments on the phone were indeed about OP accusing Samantha Taylor of cheating so does that mean the Professor was lying as to why Arnu Fourie wanted to change rooms? I'm inclined to believe the journalist on this one because it only came into dispute when OP came to court.
 
N: ..did you receive a formal engagement document..?

D: No sir, I did not.

(This is why milady is getting cross. He is saying 'sir'.!)
 
Still nothing of substance - so far no challenge to any of the doctor's evidence.

This doctor/expert has been caught lying with regard to the three sounds OP is supposed to have told him he heard before he fired four shots through his bathroom door a long time ago before the trial started, for the simple reason that OP in his testimony never mentioned hearing three sounds during Nel's cross examination. It was Nel who argued that OP fired in the direction of the magazine rack after he heard Reeva collapsing on to it due to the impact of the first bullet to her hip.

The reason given by OP for not hearing Reeva screams was that his ears were ringing, so how could he have heard the third sound of the magazine rack moving and informed his doctor before the trial commenced?
 
Nel: Might be relevant why the accused shot the deceased?

D: I can't answer that.....my role is to explain how anxiety....
 
Nel trying to pin him into saying he thinks anxiety/startle response played a role in the shooting. Witness does not want to do that.

D: Milady (!) My report can be taken into account and used in any way court sees fit.
 
N: You knew all along you views wld be used to interpret the facts in this matter?

D: I don't know what you mean.
 
"The purpose of my report was to explain to the court factors that might be important to the court to understand the accused and the role of disability, the research of flight and fight and startle reflex..."


Nel: What are you saying sir?
 
N: The question is (repeats it). Answer yes or no.

D: The facts are as they are. I'm not here to interpret....may be applicable....
 
N: I find it troubling. Third time I'm asking a simple question.

Finally gets an answer and asks prof why it took so long.

D says because he didn't understand question. Nel says pls ask next time then. D says 'I did'.
 
D: ..thought it was very very important for me to get an understanding of what happened...if I had any doubt of my feelings on what happened, I would not be standing here..

N: But you did not write it down?

D: Specific details were not important for me. Knowing if Mr P was on his stumps or not was most important to me..
 
N: Interesting comment from you that you wanted to talk to OP again as there were certain things that did not make sense to you...did you make notes on that?

D: (smiles) As a matter of fact, I do.

Nel immediately wants it put on record about the smile. And 'Why did you tell us before the break, you made no notes?'
 
But they weren't, though, at least not when he fired into the door.

It has never been established as a certainty that Oscar fired while on his stumps, Mangena described it as the more probable firing position, with the second possible firing position being on his legs and holding the firearm with a bent elbow-- just as Oscar himself described IIRC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
453
Total visitors
519

Forum statistics

Threads
608,466
Messages
18,239,823
Members
234,378
Latest member
Moebi69
Back
Top