Trial Discussion Thread #1 - 14.03.03-06, Day 1-4

[Trooper]

If Roux is trying to put him on the defensive it's working because he certainly sounds defensive

must be a culture gap going on, he doesn't sound in the least defensive to me.

 

[sorrell skye]

The thing is: Burger & Johnson wanted to remain anonymous. They were NOT seeking publicity as witnesses.

They have NOTHING to gain by becoming entangled in this horrific event.

If they were publicity seekers, I would question their motivation and I would be skeptical of their testimony.

They have shunned publicity to the point of not wanting their faces to be shown while testifying.

As Charl has just stated, he felt a moral obligation to give his statement.

 

[sorrell skye]

from the beginning, Charl and the Mrs were very specific ..they wanted anonymity across the board, from both the press, and from anyone connected to Oscar.. what an interesting remark.

Ha! I just posted the same thing.

We must be collaborating lol.

 

[Trooper]

and I'm not South African either, minor.. as you are not.

I just don't pick up on any covert or overt defensiveness in Charls testimony.. he's handled Roux very well, he collected his notes that apparently his reliability depended upon, in some folks eyes, and those notes replicate what he testified to yesterday. He is simply rejecting Roux's suggestions.. as he should if those suggestions are incorrect.

 

[minor4th]

and I'm not South African either, minor.. as you are not.

I just don't pick up on any covert or overt defensiveness in Charls testimony.. he's handled Roux very well, he collected his notes that apparently his reliability depended upon, in some folks eyes, and those notes replicate what he testified to yesterday. He is simply rejecting Roux's suggestions.. as he should if those suggestions are incorrect.

I think we are just paying attention to different aspects

 

[sorrell skye]

Is Roux hung up the deletion of the word "about" between the 2 drafts?

Draft 1. I do not recall the number of shots, but my wife recalls about 4 or 5 shots.

Draft 2. I do not recall the number of shots, but my wife recalls 4 or 5 shots.

Quoting myself - apologies.

Yep - Roux is hung up on the deletion of the word "about" in Charl's notes between the 2 drafts.

Ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

 

[Really?]

Is Roux hung up the deletion of the word "about" between the 2 drafts?

Draft 1. I do not recall the number of shots, but my wife recalls about 4 or 5 shots.

Draft 2. I do not recall the number of shots, but my wife recalls 4 or 5 shots.

I believe you are correct...:banghead:

 

[Trooper]

the odd thing is... this suggested 'collaboration' by this married couple hasn't resulted in the same number of shots!!.. Mrs says precisely 4, Mr says 5 or 6. but he didn't count them, the Mrs did.

now.. Charl states, he owns a firearm.. naturally a 5 mll, and is familiar with the sound of gunfire. Roux should have seen that one coming..

 

[BritsKate]

In witnessing what's happened to these two poor people so far (being accused of conspiracy, lying; being victimised by phone, etc.) - I sincerely hope it doesn't prevent other witnesses from coming forward to testify in the future.

These are two people awakened by something terrifying in the dead of night. Two normal everyday people who probably have never testified in court at all, much less an internationally televised murder trial. Personally, I think they deserve to be viewed as lay witnesses rather than 'professional' - I wouldn't necessarily know how to testify, and I'd damned sure be defensive after it being more than implied I was a lying, opportunistic attention seeker. I'd probably be crying and cowering behind Milady.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

Quoting myself - apologies.

Yep - Roux is hung up on the deletion of the word "about" in Charl's notes.

Ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

That is not his point. His point is that even after considering his first draft and carefully revising it twice, he still states that his wife heard 4 or 5 shots. That is different from her later testimony that she was sure it was 4 shots because she has a history of music and rhythm and it was definitely 4 shots

 

[Trooper]

I think we are just paying attention to different aspects

which aspects is Charl defensive about??

heh another reprimand for Roux from the judge.. she says.. please stick to the basis of your process, Mr Roux..

now charl has enough cool and calm to make Roux repeat his question from YESTERDAY... Roux is rattled now. .he realizes he is going back on yesterdays questions and Charl reasonably asks him to be specific.

Roux wants to know what charl THINKS..

 

[sorrell skye]

That is not his point. His point is that even after considering his first draft and carefully revising it twice, he still states that his wife heard 4 or 5 shots. That is different from her later testimony that she was sure it was 4 shots because she has a history of music and rhythm and it was definitely 4 shots

I don't know what his point is. He throws everything but the kitchen sink into every one of his diatribes that he poses to the witness.

Even My Lady just admonished Mr. Roux to be more specific regarding his current question.

 

[Trooper]

Char is talking SECONDS now. things happened in measurements of SECONDS.. screams , shots, his run to his own balcony, back inside. SECONDS>

 

[MeeBee]

That is not his point. His point is that even after considering his first draft and carefully revising it twice, he still states that his wife heard 4 or 5 shots. That is different from her later testimony that she was sure it was 4 shots because she has a history of music and rhythm and it was definitely 4 shots

Well, so much for collaboration.

 

[atthelake]

I have just lost WAT feed as it went to another story. Link for trial please! TIA

ETA: Change lasted about 3 minutes...WAT is back, thanks.

 

[sorrell skye]

What's going on???? Both the telegraph feed & the WAT feed just went to a news conference about Brussells.

 

[minor4th]

This is an important point being made about the timing of events

 

[Really?]

I have just lost WAT feed as it went to another story. Link for trial please! TIA

I lost it on the Telegraph site too:scared:

 

[shane13]

Well my prediction that the Judge would not allow 'indefinite' badgering from Roux to the
next witnesses is proven today.

 

[minor4th]

Well, so much for collaboration.

I think it does tend to show collaboration because now they are both certain the wife heard 4 shots