Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Emz73]

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. Well I'll leave it to you lot to keep those responses/quotes to a minimum then.....
:ignore:

 

[molly333]

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?

well, I don't think anything's been "proven" to be a lie. You know how it is trying to remember details of what happened a year ago. Trauma makes it worse.

You need something like, a confession to a friend plus another friend saying he asked me to help hide her body.

You need two witnesses to murder. If he can hold his own, that's the question. If he can keep his cool on the stand and not do or say something stupid.

Remember Joran Van der Sloot? Everyone knew exactly what he had done, but they could never prove it.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

BBM - and a compulsive liar. Kind of weakens his testimony when he can't remember his lies from one second to the next.

 

[Val1]

I wish they had done a blood analysis....I wonder if we still haven't figured out the sequence of events. It was odd there was so much blood downstairs and spatter on couch.....and on duvet....

Can forensics tell if blood came from a bloody nose or was straight from an artery/vein? I'm thinking the nasal mucous would be able to be detected, just like arteries should be carrying more white cells than blood from a vein, iirc.

Someone had reminded me in a previous post that RS had her yoga mat downstairs so perhaps OP got in the way as she did one of the moves and all h*ll broke loose after his "hurdle" filled day... also, when do we get to see the medical report from when he was whisked there by the family friend?

 

[weeeva]

It's not a rational thought. It is the ONLY available explanation for the shooting that does not incriminate him. "I thought he/she was an intruder" is not exactly a novel defense... it is a fairly obvious one. All that he needed to do was construct an elaborate reason and set of circumstances around it, which took five days and a large defense team.

Remember, this is the man who, between the time of a gun being fired at Tasha's and management arriving to see what the sound was, had already come up with the excuse that it was his friend who had fired it, and had convinced said friend to take the blame!

It did not take him 5 days to run to the balcony and pretend to be a woman screaming.

 

[soozieqtips]

well, I don't think anything's been "proven" to be a lie. You know how it is trying to remember details of what happened a year ago. Trauma makes it worse.

You need something like, a confession to a friend plus another friend saying he asked me to help hide her body.

You need two witnesses to murder. If he can hold his own, that's the question.
If he can keep his cool on the stand and not do or say something stupid.

Remember Joran Van der Sloot? Everyone knew exactly what he had done, but they could never prove it.

BBM - that ship has sailed.

 

[Viper]

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.

I'm new here too! Here is what I do, and it is recommended by the moderators as well: once I identify a forum member as being either full of it, just looking for an argument to pass the time, or a liar or "expert at everything" I just quickly skip over their post and read the next post. It really is that easy. In my view there really is no point in arguing with fools, because the others watching might not be able to tell the difference! An old saying, but true. Basically I ignore them, there are so many other people here to discuss things with that will treat you and your intelligence with respect.

 

[molly333]

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?

No. I'm sure that's what happened, though.

I said she brought his Valentines gift the day before and told him not to open it until Valentines day.

My reading of that is--I won't be with you when you open it.

Otherwise, wait until the next day and give it to him then.

Why give it to him a day early if you are going to be with him the next night?

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Steve/ Rumpole

As part of the State's "argument" catalyst, what do you reckon they'll suggest the argument was about? They've zilch evidence so far presented.

Unless someone finds a video or audio recording of that evening's events, no one can ever say definitely that an argument DID or DID NOT take place, let alone what any argument was about.

If murderers could only be found guilty on genuine recorded evidence or eye-witnesses reports, many now convicted murders would be free.

 

[weeeva]

The State can not call the accused to the stand. It is the right of the accused to not take the stand in their own defense if they chose not to. The defense called OP to the stand because OP wanted to take the stand.

Thanks TorisMom.

 

[TorisMom003]

It did not take him 5 days to run to the balcony and pretend to be a woman screaming.

No and there is no proof that he did that at all. OP claims that he did that. OP lies. At one point yesterday OP claimed that he whispered to Reeva to get down and phone police. Then he turned around and said that he spoke softly to Reeva to get down and phone police. Then he turned around and said he never said he whispered to Reeva, he just spoke softly.

OP also lied about the Tasha's incident. The gun did not, in any way form or fashion, go off by itself while HE was holding it. OP clearly had to pull the trigger yet he still claimed over and over and over and over again that his finger was not on the trigger or anywhere near the trigger.

To take something that OP says as the truth without questioning it is, IMO, foolish.

MOO

 

[jilly]

Great!!! Easy. Thank you.

You'll probably have to refresh your page when you come back here.

 

[weeeva]

Because OP is the star witness for the defense.

Defendant doesn't have to take the stand, but the lawyers say he does in this case because he is claiming self defense or accident based on self defense. So he needs to explain his state of mind to the court.

Thanks molly. I understand it now.

 

[molly333]

BBM - and a compulsive liar. Kind of weakens his testimony when he can't remember his lies from one second to the next.

Don't forget, you have to meet the standard of reasonable doubt.

Do we have a list of lies that together meet that standard and that we can prove are lies and not just misunderstood, misinterpreted, misspoken, and misremembered?

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm new here too! But no you can't block viewing their messages. But here is what I do, and it is recommended by the moderators as well: once I identify a forum member as being either full of it, just looking for an argument to pass the time, or a liar or "expert at everything" I just quickly skip over their post and read the next post. It really is that easy. In my view there really is no point in arguing with fools, because the others watching might not be able to tell the difference! An old saying but true. Basically ignore them, there are so many other people here to discuss things with that will treat you with respect.

Viper, you can use the ignore list and then you don't have to see their messages at all. You only see them if someone else quotes them.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm new here too! But no you can't block viewing their messages. But here is what I do, and it is recommended by the moderators as well: once I identify a forum member as being either full of it, just looking for an argument to pass the time, or a liar or "expert at everything" I just quickly skip over their post and read the next post. It really is that easy. In my view there really is no point in arguing with fools, because the others watching might not be able to tell the difference! An old saying but true. Basically ignore them, there are so many other people here to discuss things with that will treat you with respect.

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.

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.

Viper, the above two posts should help you as well.

 

[TorisMom003]

Don't forget, you have to meet the standard of reasonable doubt.

Do we have a list of lies that together meet that standard and that we can prove are lies and not just misunderstood, misinterpreted, misspoken, and misremembered?

Do you know how long it would take to list his complete list of lies up until current time in his testimony? There are plenty of them. Nel has been calling him out on them as well.

Perjury makes the entire testimony suspect. When one lies on the stand they are committing perjury.

 

[clearskies1]

I do believe that OP and Reeva fought that night. But unless there's something on the phones/ipads which we haven't already heard about (extremely doubtful), I don't think we'll ever know what sparked it. From the texts and OP's testimony, she likely challenged him on something and he lost it.

MOO.

 

[weeeva]

OP is the accused/defendant. He can't be compelled to testify, but he can if he chooses (he's chosen to).

If a defendant chooses to testify, they do so during the Defense's case in chief, which occurs after the prosecution rests.

OK sorrel. Of course that makes sense How could I be so stupid?

 

[Viper]

Viper, you can use the ignore list and then you don't have to see their messages at all. You only see them if someone else quotes them.

Oooh! I did say that I am new here. :smile: I think I will go edit my post!