Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nel: Not even OP perceived the attack on the night was because he was disabled.

WD: Certainly not to my knowledge.

WD: "My experience of OP is that he downplays his disability."


Nel accuses Derman of "showing his bias" by claiming he misheard. Judge says this is unfair comment.
 
N: He's never indicated in the record he's been a victim of crime because he is disabled.

D says he misunderstood the question. Didn't hear Nel mention record.

Judge rebukes Nel for questioning prof's answer.
 
Nel asks where OP was when he heard first knock. 'Did he tell you where deceased was?'

D: Not that I recollect....as far as I understand he thought the deceased was lying next to him in bed.
 
D: His first response was to freeze.

N: So whatever he did after that he was in control of himself?
 
N: You can't now freeze and then fight.

D: No, you see we have three different responses; three different stimuli...
 
What is the latest defense testimony?

The doctor yesterday morning, saying he could barely walk without falling and needed light on to stay balanced, and his heels clicked painfully...and he felt so vulnerable because he was so unstable physically
 
N: ...freezing...after that, he did not act in a fight mode, because of that one sound?

Witness says Nel is putting statements to him, not questions.

N: When he armed himself, he wasn't acting in the fight mode?

D: No no no. That's not what I said.
 
Nel: what was the first startle? WD: knock of window against frame...he was in bedroom...can't recall where deceased was.

Nel: He can't freeze then get gun? Derman: "He has three various different reactions." Three stimuli, three different sounds.





This is ridiculous, the witness recounts the event like he was there? But it's what OP told him. jmo
 
No it was not. Shortly before the trial began the state changed its case from being on his legs to being on his stumps, due to new ballistics evidence.

You must to referring Botha's rush to judgement about OP putting on his prosthetics and returning to the bathroom without any scientific backing that created havoc for the prosecution long before the actual trial started. What we should lay emphasis now is what the charge sheet states that was produced in court and the copy was handed over to the defense.
 
N: There's an element of thinking?

D: Indeed. He had to think that he had to get his gun.
 
The comment about posaible shower ricohet is going to be a problem.
 
The doctor yesterday morning, saying he could barely walk without falling and needed light on to stay balanced, and his heels clicked painfully...and he felt so vulnerable because he was so unstable physically

...that doesn't seem to change much. We've always known he was unstable on his stumps, ever since Sam Taylor testified. And the theory that he was too unstable to fire a gun on his stumps is certainly not new ground. What do the forensics/ballistics show? That he was on his stumps.
 
N: he must think:

Where my gun is?

D: Yes.

N: I must get my gun, it's not in usual place?

D: Yes.
 
You must to referring Botha's rush to judgement about OP putting on his prosthetics and returning to the bathroom without any scientific backing that created havoc for the prosecution long before the actual trial started. What we should lay emphasis now is what the charge sheet states that was produced in court and the copy was handed over to the defense.

We've discussed this before and much was made before the trial about how the prosecution had to change its theory due to new ballistics evidence...that happened, either way.
 
D: That all fulfills cognitive thought of flight fight response...

N: That's all over, moments before.

D: No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
231
Total visitors
346

Forum statistics

Threads
608,904
Messages
18,247,545
Members
234,500
Latest member
tracyellen
Back
Top