Trial Discussion Thread #6 - 14.03.13-14, Day 9-10

[zwiebel]

Roux questioning why OP would have moved the plank/panel and turned it upside down.

 

[MeeBee]

yes, you are confused.. see yesterdays testimony..

its merely Roux claim that its a footprint.. Roux has offered no evidence that it is whereas the colonel has ... his testimony.


WHEN roux offers evidence that it IS a foot print then you can make a decision whos right.. but right now, its merely Roux opinion.

Ok, I see. But testimony isn't really evidence either. I mean, isn't it only the colonel's opinion that it's not a foot print? Only one of them can be right. What does it look like? Does it look like a foot print?

 

[Trooper]

Col V going thru many possibilities why there is that mark.. which isn't consistent with the opinion of Roux that its a footprint..

its up to the judge to accept one version of the other. isn't up to Vermulen to agree when it is inconsistent with his investigation that its Oscars footprint..

Photo of ocars leg on the night..

 

[zwiebel]

Photo shown of OP's leg with blood on it, wearing a sock. Roux says that is the foot that kicked the door.

Col does not want to accept Roux's statement that 'That is the foot that kicked the door'

 

[MeeBee]

Roux questioning why OP would have moved the plank/panel and turned it upside down.

Maybe he threw it?

 

[zwiebel]

Col; That mark did not appear to me to be of a shoe or of a footprint.....and I received the leg without the sock.

 

[Trooper]

Col v received the leg without the socks..

 

[zwiebel]

I hope the sock wasn't lost in the chain of evidence....

 

[zwiebel]

Looking at bullet holes in door now.

 

[Trooper]

Ok, I see. But testimony isn't really evidence either. I mean, isn't it only the colonel's opinion that it's not a foot print? Only one of them can be right. What does it look like? Does it look like a foot print?

well testimony is evidence... this is the Cols sworn testimony.

Roux, or Oscar, haven't made sworn testimony that it is a footprint, have they??

 

[zwiebel]

R: There are two close-up photos of the mark as well, so police were paying some attention to that?

 

[minor4th]

So, no one on the state's side did any kind of investigation to determine if Oscar's version could be true? if they were so confident that he was lying, why wouldn't they test his version to determine whether the non-cricket-bat mark could have been caused by the prosthetic leg?

Since Roux keep bringing up microscopic inspection, I bet his experts have conducted microscopic examinations that will shed more light on these marks

 

[zwiebel]

Roux showing him pic of the 'bottom side' of prosthetic leg. Nel doesn't have a copy but is given one quickly! No adjournement necessary this time!

 

[Trooper]

when the defence witness swears it IS a footprint, is the time to make the decision about whether its a foot print or not.

its absurd to make the claim it IS a footprint on Roux opinion. and in law, an error.

 

[zwiebel]

Discussing Roger Dixon, Col's former commander 'before he left'.

 

[MeeBee]

well testimony is evidence... this is the Cols sworn testimony.

Roux, or Oscar, haven't made sworn testimony that it is a footprint, have they??

But why is the Colonel so sure that's not a foot print? Has he said. Just saying that it's not is not an answer. I'm just trying to understand.

 

[minor4th]

LOL, the expert Roux used is the former commander of the Colonel

ETA: And he got the Colonel to say that Dixon is competent

 

[zwiebel]

Witness just asked Roux the date of a photo and Roux wouldn't tell him.

 

[zwiebel]

LOL, the expert Roux used is the former commander of the Colonel

Really?

 

[Trooper]

why is Roux so sure it is a footprint?


well that's easy. it suits his clients story. .


why is the colonel sure it isn't a footprint?

it doesn't fit the research and his investigation. its up to the judge to decide..