Trial Discussion Thread #46 - 14.07.7, Day 37

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't actually see OP on the watermelon video can you?

In any event, why would he be stressed or anxious in that scenario?
 
N: The video you saw of shooting of watermelon - no indication of anxiety or fear?

D: I saw that video once - I can't make a psych assessment - I can't recall the details - I know there was sound after, there was laughter. That's all I know.
 
N: Now, the fact that the accused was able to run on his stumps as far as he's concerned, in his mind, is something you cannot exclude?

D: yes.
 
Nel: The fact that the accused was able to run on his stumps, in his mind, that you cannot exclude - that he can run on his stumps?
D: Yes.
 
Nel wants 10 min adjournment to go through his notes.
 
N talks about OP breaking down door on his stumps and D says "I know that's what he did do."

N: How do you know?

D: I read it in the records.

Nel asks for and is given 10.
 
So now OP broke door down on his stumps?

Whose version is that? I'm confused.
 
So now OP broke door down on his stumps?

Whose version is that? I'm confused.

ETA: I'm obviously confused here. I posted this twice.
 
Imo, Nel has a problem with Prof D answering with, "I remember" instead of "I remember I read it in the record", so Nel has to correct him each and every time. :back:
 
Nel's alluding to the video again. Mr Roden mentioned the "screech" of the mag rack several times. It was even shown being accidentally kicked by the actor playing Reeva in the toilet during the re enactment.

See how they showed her as being down cowering behind the toilet in that video, not standing like the forensics have said? I haven't watched the whole thing yet though.
 
I think they should show the video.

Nel has made quite a few implied references to what he's seen in the video but if Nel decides some things are favourable to OP and doesn't ask for it to be shown, do you think the defence will then ask for it to be shown?
 
The video did not need to be raised explicitly. It was very clearly raised implicitly. That was what caused Derman to backtrack on the impression he was out to give last week. He has now recognized that OP on stumps is capable of what he himself thinks of as running and that he (Derman) does not know that he needs any support from his hands to do so.

The video has done its job. I don't suppose we shall hear any more about it.

In my recollection Derman did not recognise that OP on stumps is capable of running as of the proper meaning, i.e. both feet, legs in OP's case, off the ground in each stride. And just now Nel proved that he Derman hadn't recognized this when he saw best to qualify to Derman in a question about OP running as "running in OP's mind", otherwise had he not qualified it we might have been back to the long debate does OP "run" as in proper running or as in OP's disabled way which IMO is not running.
 
So now OP broke door down on his stumps?

Whose version is that? I'm confused.

I think after he shot, when he first tried to open the door and found it locked, he tried to butt it with his shoulder. Then went and got his legs on and a cricket bat and broke it. It's been so long since OP's testimony now I don't know that I can rely on my memory
 
barrybateman · 1m

#OscarTrial Nel refers to Mr Derman. Oldwadge sits up - “Professor” Derman. Masipa says it was clearly a mistake. Things getting petty. BB

IMHO

"Petty" is Oldwage's middle name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
4,690
Total visitors
4,857

Forum statistics

Threads
602,883
Messages
18,148,303
Members
231,568
Latest member
Knewborn96
Back
Top