Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[zwiebel]

COL: I had to determine if the bat was used to break the door.....I am happy with the marks I examined, that it fulfilled that request....I did not do physical matching of other marks.

 

[zwiebel]

R: The top mark?

Col: I did not ...I could not see from that mark that it matched the bat.

 

[zwiebel]

So Col is saying if he didn't think marks matched the bat, he didn't bother examining them I think....

And some he did not even see....

 

[Carol70]

Well, if that's it, I'm afraid I see nothing that suggests OP was not telling the truth on what happened that night! I only see someone who is an obnoxious arrogant cowboy.

Wonder why Nel has not called any of the Myers/Batchelor/ Sam T's mother (who had a lot to say about the shooting) etc? Very strange, doesn't seem any character witnesses who could of given us a glimpse into his true self. LOL, unless true to whats been said- OP really is a nice guy!

 

[zwiebel]

Roux asks if he has looked at his photos since his last testimony. Col says No.

We are now seeing close ups of bat held against the top mark. That expert did not see??

 

[MeeBee]

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

Well, that was generous of him?

 

[loohoo]

Is it possible that the State actually does believe OP's version of events but is simply going through the motions of playing devil's advocate for the purpose of giving him a fair trial? Could that be why they've presented such a weak case and are ending it on such a weak note? Does that happen in the legal world??

 

[nursebeeme]

Updated Trial Schedule​

"The court in Guateng province said that the trial would continue until 4 April, then adjourn for one week before resuming until 16 May.

"All parties involved" had agreed to the dates, the court said."


Link - BBC South Africa

Admin/Mod Note​

Thank you all for participating! This forum has a special dynamic - good sleuthers, intelligent discussions, though provoking opinions expressed ... it makes it enjoyable to read & moderate. We sincerely thank you for that!

The last few days I've been disappointed to see a few exchanges begin to deteriorate :no: - escalating from a lack of tolerance for differing opinions. Of course opinions are going to differ when a bunch of intelligent, independent thinkers have a discussion. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. I understand the passion but the purpose should not be to change anyone else's mind. Respect your fellow posters and make a conscious effort to be tolerant. Please note that passive-aggressive, snarky, personalized posts will not be tolerated and, beginning immediately, will result in a loss of posting privileges.

Thanks all. :heartbeat:

:bump:

 

[Carol70]

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.

Some apps/ your email etc run in the back ground of your phone, also, updates for your various apps run automatically. The only way I would imagine there was zero activity on the phone is if it were off.

 

[zwiebel]

Oh.

There are loads of photos of bat against that mark.

Col: I honestly forgot about them...still I maintain I could not match the bat to that mark'

 

[kittychi]

OP's defense is precisely that?

I do not understand what you are objecting to?

My position is that I don't know if he is telling the truth or not.

The case presented by the State is mainly their contention that OP is lying. And (IMO) they failed to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.. in fact they failed well short of that standard.

Key word: "Reasonable." 1 witness hearing screaming, okay maybe they mis-heard, even two. But 5 witnesses hearing bloodcurdling, terrifying screams goes beyond "reasonable" doubt for me.

But then, I was already there. :smiliescale:

 

[MeeBee]

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.

Oh, I'm not the person to ask lol. I am a little confused by it. If this is when her phone was accessed for 11 hours then it seems like it was not manually done but automatic. So I don't know if it could show that, at least on her end.

 

[zwiebel]

Rous says he did it deliberately because a man on stumps could not have reached there.

Col says it is possible, with someone close to the door.

R: These photos did not find their way into the album. Why not?

Col: I don't know where they come from

R: Col VS said he sat down with you and you were the person who decided not to put them in......

Col: when I did the investigation there was no request for me to determine height of the person who hit the door...I went into it with an open mind.....I can't remember taking photos out with Col VS.

 

[Melanie]

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

Sure seems to be -- he came back because he inspected the door again and there was an impression on the door that he wanted to look at, and is testifying to that mark (higher up on the door). Not sure if he's testified that it matches that of the cricket bat though.

MOO

Mel

 

[zwiebel]

Roux asked him to look back through his cases before. He found about 60. Now Roux asking for details of those cases. They include plastics, metals.....

Col: Nothing specifically on wood.

He did not have time to do cricket bat sound tests that Roux is implying he should have done.

 

[zwiebel]

Now talking about class characteristic/unique characteristics of shoe marks.

First is a shoe brand, for example, second could be an air bubble formed in the sole that would not be in all those shoes.

Witness says he was not asked to examine any shoe marks on door.

Nel up. Is calling the top mark the 'defence's mark', Lol!

 

[graceholl]

Key word: "Reasonable." 1 witness hearing screaming, okay maybe they mis-heard, even two. But 5 witnesses hearing bloodcurdling, terrifying screams goes beyond "reasonable" doubt for me.

But then, I was already there. :smiliescale:

I get what you are saying, but hearing bloodcurdling screams IMO does not proffer the required to meet 'premeditated' :moo:

 

[steveml]

I really feel for anyone who has to take the stand, it must be so much worse with TV cameras etc. There's quite a bit of stuttering and stammering but I'm not reading anything into it regarding his level of knowledge or ability.

 

[zwiebel]

Col: Defence approached me and asked me for my phone records

Nel: I want to know the basis for this request, after the witness had given evidence and if it is still required? (to Judge)

RouX: If I had intended to ask questions about this I would have done so.

And I think Nel just concluded his case?

 

[MeeBee]

Good question Nel. I don't see why they should get another chance at a witness that already testified. Maybe Roux is calling new evidence. Still seems odd.