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

[james83]

Oh god, Roux referring to the gunshots vs batshots youtube video, cue thousands of people watching it and then declaring Oscar's innocence on twitter, yawn.

 

[BritsKate]

Ok. If the Col's was to investigate the bat marks and not the proposed foot print, then he doesn't know it's a kick mark or not. Wouldn't the more appropriate answer be, "I don't know?" Obviously, Roux has to ask the question because he wants it put out that it could be or is a kick mark. The Col 's answers have the potential of sounding biased. I don't want them to.

Understand that not all of us can watch the live feed right now. Not trying to be a nuisance, just trying to understand what I don't know. If it's a nuisance to answer the question, the skip it...

I'm half asleep still but was listening to live feed. This may be the case that makes me start sipping mimosas at teatime.

My understanding - listening, reading tweets and comments - is that the Col was focused primarily on the cricket bat marks. Other marks on the door were left to other people. Roux wants witness to concede to Roux' theory of events. Witness is obviously reluctant.

While Col isn't a good witness and there's more than enough room to argue inept incompetence....I personally think this cross is mostly obfuscation. It seems, to me, Roux keeps deliberately asking Col's opinion on evidence he wouldn't have examined; collected; necessarily even been aware of (and irrelevant youtube videos) just to make him - and by extension the investigation and subsequent State's case - look even worse. JMO
------------
Charl du Plessis ‏@CharlduPlessc 4m
Note that a lot of forensic defence groundwork is being laid through Vermeulen. He wasn't at crime scene.

Andrew Beatty ‏@AndrewBeatty 18m
Barry Roux uses court to point everyone to a youtube video that is favourible to his client. PR campaign and trial merge

https://twitter.com/CharlduPlessc
https://twitter.com/AndrewBeatty

 

[MeeBee]

I'm not saying he should agree it's a kick mark. Just that he might concede he doesn't know if he, in fact, doesn't know. I'm not saying I think it's a kick mark. I haven't seen it and I have doubts whether Oscar would kick the door with his prosthesis. But it makes the witness sound biased. Maybe I'm just not getting the full picture, but that's what it seems like.

 

[Trooper]

back in court, my friends..

 

[BritsKate]

Charl du Plessis ‏@CharlduPlessc 1m
#OscarPistorius During the break an SAPS detective walks up to door. Shines torch & peers at alleged prosthesis kick mark

https://twitter.com/CharlduPlessc

 

[zwiebel]

Col promised to get example case files but could not get them yesterday evening so says he will get them later.

 

[Trooper]

meebs.. hehe.. in his opinion , he DOES know..

stop it. *


* snort*

 

[zwiebel]

Col: The panels were kept in place with sellotape, so they were not as sturdy as they are now.

Then Roux goes off about youtube and is reading it's number out in court to witness, so witness can watch it. Nine bravo mike mike etc.....

 

[zwiebel]

Roux no further question, Nel now.

 

[zwiebel]

N: let's start with missing pieces...I'll deal with nine separate issues..

 

[BritsKate]

Wants witness to rely on his own tests...but is perfectly comfortable referring said witness to the sound video posted on youtube.

Alrighty then.

 

[zwiebel]

Col says no clear indication anything serious happened 'up there' (top of door) that's why it wasn't important to find missing bits.

But Nel says there are bits missing below the mark as well.....seems to lose track. I think Col said no?

No damage to door handle.

 

[Trooper]

a file called 70 bravo bravo mike mike Juliet, Oscar , Papa 43 Able, Foxtrot..., * squint eyed here *

back to 'the mark'.. heh.

cricket marks, specifically.

mark 1.. mark 2. re cricket bat.. ( there were only 2 identifiable cricket bat whacks)

going back to the demonstation of the bat hitting the door yesterday.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel asks him if he still stands by the angle of the bat re the marks. Col a bit long winded, but says yes.

 

[zwiebel]

Roux objects to angle of bat being expressed as fact. Judge upholds.

 

[james83]

May sound crazy but i honestly can't see why m'lady doesn't go up to the door with the bat and see exactly what the colonel is talking about regarding unnatural position's,
practical judging.

 

[Trooper]

Nels objects.. wants roux to delineate what is his opinion and what are the facts stipulated to

Roux going to the road of the angle of the bat on impact to the door .

 

[Trooper]

this bat ... !!..

Col V explaining the angle of the bat, in relation to its iimpact
'ooo the judge is holding the bat!@

 

[Trooper]

ah god, my day is made.. the judge holds the bat!!

 

[zwiebel]

Col demonstrating angle of bat, marks on door etc....or pointing to photo. I'm lost!

Judge: Can I just have a look at that? (Marks or photo? Not sure)