Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Really?]

well, I can no longer hang. I'm going to play catch up after my morning nap.

Zzzzzzzz

 

[Rumpole]

The 1:48 am activity on OP's phone lasted 309 seconds.

Obviously we don't have enough info to know what the activity was. If it was important I trust Nel will route it out.

BBM

Nel has nearly finished. He has left doing much else a bit late.

It was made clear that GPRS events... connections to internet.... are NOT necessarily indicative of anybody using the phone at all.

 

[graceholl]

I think that the State overcharged and have been trying to make a case that they do not have the evidence to make. They have nearly finished. I see nothing that they have proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing that have proved on the balance of the evidence even.

Respectfully snipped

I completely agree. :twocents:

 

[G.bng]

OP's irrational and unreasonable behaviour cannot be denied. Although if Nel pushes this point too far, it could add credence to OP's statement as to why he acted the way he did. I'm not that sure this really helps the prosecution case with the charge of murder with intent.

I don't see it hurts the prosecution either and in any case if Nel had't brought it up the defence would have so better to come clean. I think he may have really wanted to show OP had not reported the multiple crimes he claims he has been a victim of so as to prepare his cross and ask OP about them (OP's fears and experience with crime could imo be very relevant to the case). And if OP "can't remember", "can't remember", "can't remember" when asked dates, for the information officer to find them, OP will lose credibility before the judge. And if you lose it one area... jmo

In respect of "the murder charge with intent", yes SA works with just two kinds of killings, intentional and negligent, i.e. "murder" and "culpable homicide". But the sting is that under intentional are included some unintended killings if even the possible consequences of the act were foreseeable. I am not sure which they are riding on, intentional or the unintentional with foreseeable consequences, or both... just waiting to see which comes out in the wash or if I have understood it all wrong.

 

[graceholl]

We're back.

#OscarPistorius Judge is back and we begin final State witness. Should complete their side this pm. Defence expected to take day off to prep

source https://twitter.com/AlexCrawfordSky

 

[minor4th]

Vermuelen got a hair cut

 

[Gbtaketwo]

after Vermuelen - that’s it from the state.

Needs to be
Pow Blam Splat if he is to live up to his reputation

 

[Rumpole]

Yep...it's Ricky Gervais again... called back on request of Roux

 

[minor4th]

So he's only called back for Roux to cross examine him?

 

[Forensics]

Nel tells the court that the witness is being called back at the request of Roux. BB

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yep...it's Ricky Gervais again... called back on request of Roux

Well that's torn it then !!

 

[katydid23]

I have a bad feeling about ending the state's case on the 'batman.' :frown:

IIRC, he was a very confusing witness. And Roux had his way with him. I do not understand this ending. It is very weak, imo.:trainwreck:

 

[Forensics]

Vermuelen came to court to investigate additional marks. He says he could not ID any new marks. BB

 

[Forensics]

Roux is quite surprised that no one pointed out to Vermuelen the mark in question. BB

Vermeulen: I could only relate two marks on the door to the cricket bat. BB
Expand

 

[zwiebel]

OMG. Col says no-one told him exactly where to look for the other mark on the door that Roux thinks his team found. Says he found nothing anyway.

It is just above handle. Col V says he can see it now.

 

[katydid23]

O MY..they are going to end their case with a witness requested by Roux? :doh:

 

[Forensics]

defence forensic expert points out the additional mark. Vermeulen says he sees it. BB

 

[Forensics]

Vermeulen: says he looked at the other marks but could not relate them to the cricket bat. BB

 

[zwiebel]

R: I am talking about you examining the two marks to see if the bat fits. Is it correct you did not take pictures of this?

Col V says he is not a toolmark examiner and did not try to fit bat into other marks: 'Cannot relate the bat to some marks'.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't think it's strange but it opens up the possibility that they were actually up at this time. Maybe?

Thanks. Maybe they were up but not using the internet or phones and had left them open by mistake. Could you explain how her connection would have been switched off at that time. If I remember correctly it has been open for a very long time. Is there some sort of auto disconnection or would it need to have been done manually? You can tell how clueless I am about smart phones, even though I own one.