Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[TrueDetective]

WHY would Roux intervene when Nel is making a fool of himself?

While Nel is digging himself into a hole, Roux does not want to hinder him. He certainly does not want to take Nel's spade off him.

There are lots of things that "don't make sense" to Nel. They make perfect sense to me, and I am sure also the defense and the Judge. (Roux has the opportunity to clarify things for the judge anyway). Nel's "confusion" is a gift, a good starting point to sharpen the defense points from. It is only through Nel's histrionics that Roux is getting a look at the version the State wants to propose. It is full of inconsistencies within itself. Their own "ear" witnesses disagree on some important points, and the interpretation that all the State witnesses have made is clearly at odds with the State's own expert witnesses and the real physical evidence.

I'm really not sure what trial you've been watching this week. Nel is clinically, relentlessly and rather too easily picking OP's testimony apart. He is NOT confused, he is highlighting glaring inconsistencies and lies and occasionally stating it for the court record that it "doesn't make sense" because guess what... it doesn't make sense!!

 

[soozieqtips]

Repositioning the fans was a bail hearing fiction created to make it seem like all was well when they went to bed at 10 p.m., slept peacefully until the heat woke OP up at 3 a.m., and he got up to bring the fans in closer. Why closing the doors would make it cooler I don't know, but it's not important imo because that didn't happen either.

He said he woke up because he was too warm or something. Someone from SA (can't remember who) said it would have been cool enough to close the doors at that time of the morning, but obviously it wasn't cool enough for OP. So being too warm, he decided to make himself warmer by closing the doors. He's a bit of a question mark, isn't he...

 

[Rumpole]

I'm really not sure what trial you've been watching this week. Nel is clinically, relentlessly and rather too easily picking OP's testimony apart. He is NOT confused, he is highlighting glaring inconsistencies and lies and occasionally stating it for the court record that it "doesn't make sense" because guess what... it doesn't make sense!!

It makes sense to me.

Maybe.... seriously... if you could (just as a mental exercise), assume that OP is not guilty.. then go watch a replay you would see things differently. Nel comes across as daft, and feigning "confusion" about things that are make perfect sense.

 

[wb180]

To quote Nel's own words ( When he lapsed into his famous Judge Judy Impersonation) :genie:

"I doesn't make sense"

And of course the Judge Judy corollary to that is..

It's not true.


Nel is likely not as daft as he seems at the moment. he KNOWS he can not make such a case and prove it beyond reasonable doubt (or prove it at all) and so that is why he is spending so much time going over OP's "version" He knows that the Judges deliberations will be focused on accepting OP's version, and considering his actions having conceded that he did NOT fire at the door knowing that Reeva was behind it.

He fired at an intruder (in his mind) and in effect he "missed" the intruder and hit Reeva by accident. I imagine that that will still leave a lot for the judge to consider. I also imagine that Roux will be arguing that it should be regarded as an "accident".

He is going thru OP version coz it's a false. He is trying to prove his case thru circumstantial evidence unless he can crack OP and get direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence involves a certain common sense to be applied.

 

[molly333]

Where he claims he had just been and was still within arm's reach of his legs... if he could see the jeans you can be sure he could have seen his legs, besides knowing from habit exactly where they were. I would actually call it more strange that if he was indeed sleeping on the left side of the bed for his poor shoulder, that he hadn't taken off and laid his legs on that side with the fan blowing on them there, it would surely have prevented such a traffic jam by the balcony doors. I think he was just trying to make it seem like he had to choose between his legs and his gun and wasn't paying attention to the big picture.

We all know he didn't do any of that. No disabled person, whose life and career depends on not being injured, is going to chance groping his way around in the darkness among fans and extension cords and legs and computers and clothes.
He didn't do it. So what's he hiding with the story? They never went to bed that night. They were up eating at 1am, and then the fight.

 

[sorrell skye]

The person said the outlandish theories in posts were entertaining... not the "murder" charge (Death) itself.

And I agree.

The so-called "outlandish" theories are based on the murder charge and based on the evidence & testimony presented thus far, ergo, one can presume that the characterization of "entertaining" pertains to the murder charge itself, especially since those who are agreeing with the State's case are not agreeing with those who believe that OP is innocent of the murder charge.

If the State's case was so "outlandish", it would have never made it to trial. Apparently, the Court deemed that the State had enough evidence to proceed to trial with the charges.

 

[TrueDetective]

It makes sense to me.

Maybe.... seriously... if you could (just as a mental exercise), assume that OP is not guilty.. then go watch a replay you would see things differently. Nel comes across as daft, and feigning "confusion" about things that are make perfect sense.

I am not assuming anything. I watch the trial and all the evidence and testimony to date says he is guilty. Nel is hardly daft. He is a tough prosecutor doing his best to convict a murderer and deliver justice for RS's family and protect the rule of law. He believes in that and knowing the case so intimately he probably cares deeply and that should be greatly respected.
So we will have to agree to disagree. I think you are barking up the wrong tree and cannot understand your current position based on events so far but... I am quite willing to have my mind changed by any developments in the trial and my own personal judgement (which is irrelevant!) will be made after the defense's case and closing arguments. I'm sure this is true for the vast majority of most here actually.

 

[Emz73]

I'm quite new here but is there anyway of blocking posters you find offensive and rude? So I don't have to read their messages.

 

[molly333]

Seriously, if they come up with nothing, well . . . enough said, eh? Thanks Steve x

We know what the fight was about. She was breaking up with him that night. He got the day before Valentine's day and a picture. And, that was the end.

It's the only thing that would throw him into a rage and explains why they were up all night.

But I can't see ever proving it.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm quite new here but is there anyway of blocking posters you find offensive and rude? So I don't have to read their messages.

Scroll up to the top of the page. Look to the left where it says Home then User CP. Click on User CP. Then look on the left hand side and scroll down til you see Edit Ignore List. Click on Edit Ignore List. Type the name in the box and click OK.

 

[kaos]

If this was done during the day and he fired blindly into a door, there would be no question of his guilt so I don't see that it's even that relevant that it's dark as he was never going to be able to see through a wooden door. He never waited for a response to his alleged "Get out of my house", never said "I've got a gun trained on you and the police have been called". The person behind the door never stood a chance.

 

[Whiteorchids]

I have been unbiased since day one with open mind. I have watched all the hearings the more he speaks the worse it gets for him. He can't remember his lies but calls them mistakes when he is corrected.

The judge Thokozile Masipa is very smart and experienced and is listening to every word. OP cannot pull the wool over her eyes. He is going down, down, down.

 

[sorrell skye]

I said exonerate his interpretations (of events) .

Not his guilt or non guilt.

OP's so-called "interpretations of events" is his evidence.

OP is presenting his evidence to support his plea of not guilty.

Again, I ask - how do anyone's theories of guilt prove that OP is not guilty?

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm quite new here but is there anyway of blocking posters you find offensive and rude? So I don't have to read their messages.

Follow TorisMom instructions but remember to click on 'save changes' after you click 'okay'. If you log out, you'll have to go back in and 'save changes' again. Once it's done, you'll only see their posts when someone else quotes them.

 

[molly333]

It makes sense to me.

Maybe.... seriously... if you could (just as a mental exercise), assume that OP is not guilty.. then go watch a replay you would see things differently. Nel comes across as daft, and feigning "confusion" about things that are make perfect sense.

yeah. If there are two possible explanations for something, you have to give him the innocent explanation. That's presumption of innocence.

So far, the prosecutor's got nothing but innuendo.

 

[TorisMom003]

Follow TorisMom instructions but remember to click on 'save changes' after you click 'okay'. If you log out, you'll have to go back in and 'save changes' again. Once it's done, you'll only see their posts when someone else quotes them.

Thanks Soozie! I forgot that part. I had to go through the steps to remember how to do it. lol

 

[Emz73]

Scroll up to the top of the page. Look to the left where it says Home then User CP. Click on User CP. Then look on the left hand side and scroll down til you see Edit Ignore List. Click on Edit Ignore List. Type the name in the box and click OK.

Great!!! Easy. Thank you.

 

[TorisMom003]

yeah. If there are two possible explanations for something, you have to give him the innocent explanation. That's presumption of innocence.

So far, the prosecutor's got nothing but innuendo.

The lies that OP is telling on the stand, that have been proven to be lies, is being forgotten it seems. If OP is committing perjury on the stand about all sorts of things, then his entire testimony and his "version" is also called into question.

If OP was innocent then why the need to lie?

 

[TorisMom003]

Great!!! Easy. Thank you.

No problem! And you are most welcome!

 

[soozieqtips]

We know what the fight was about. She was breaking up with him that night. He got the day before Valentine's day and a picture. And, that was the end.

It's the only thing that would throw him into a rage and explains why they were up all night.

But I can't see ever proving it.

Who said the fight was about Reeva ending it with him over a Valentine's Day gift? There have been several theories floated but I don't recall it being unequivocally agreed that the argument was about a gift. Do you have a link to any posts that state "we" know what the fight was about?