Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[Sarahlou]

Moo.....I think this trial is over. MiLady will see OP for the lies he is willing to tell and will find no need to hear more lies. Bang

If only. I'm not that optimistic! I don't see how anyone could believe Oscar, but this is a corrupt system and he is a 'celeb'.

 

[katydid23]

Also, I think Nel wanted to get that video in because it shows how quickly OP can get his legs on.

 

[zwiebel]

They're back.

Judge: I think both counsel have a point. So I'm going to stand this matter down, let defence view the video....

Have they really not seen it?

We are adjourned, again!

 

[TartLemon]

Will this break go through lunch time too?

 

[Cher352]

Judge back and said new adjournment to allow Roux to watch video.

Didn't anyone catch how long of an adjournment?

 

[04009margaret]

Didn't the state present a previous Sky News clip and it was allowed because it was in the public domain?

Sorry if already answered, had call after call gr. It was Roux with the kissing video

 

[zwiebel]

Well that was hardly worth 'rushing' back for. I wonder if they will be back before lunch?

 

[Rumpole]

I seems to me like a sign of desperation on Nel's part.

if they show this sky news report video, why not any old news report

We know how fair and scrupulously "fact based" news reports are.

Maybe I was wrong earlier when I posted that neither side would be reading WS to gain info... perhaps Nel is that desperate :floorlaugh:

 

[steveml]

If only. I'm not that optimistic! I don't see how anyone could believe Oscar, but this is a corrupt system and he is a 'celeb'.

Strong words those.

Then if he's found guilty on all counts you'll still maintain that stance I hope?

 

[BritsKate]

I haven't followed (or moderated) many international trials here at WS. I followed the Knox case a little but Italy's system is SO different, I stayed confused and frustrated. To my surprise, the South African system is very, very similar to the U.S. procedurally speaking. The obvious glaring difference is no jury trial.

Italy would have been the same if it'd been part of the British Empire. Damn. I think my husband just scored a point somehow - time to go rub the Boston Tea Party in his face again.

Only in my house do we debate the (American) Revolutionary war...in 2014.:biggrin:

 

[canny]

He didn't lie and I don't think Nel is even implying it. OP said he doesn't know what a zombie stopper is. He used the phrase once and then might have forgotten about saying it. He may have thought Nel was asking about an actual object called a zombie stopper. OP is the one who offered to have the video played so he could better answer the question. Don't see how someone who is lying or obfuscating would do that.

Sure, OP suffers from selective memory or selective anemia, take you pick .

 

[jay-jay]

Me three.

I also don't think OP is lying by saying he has never heard of a zombie stopper, given that it was not, in the context, a 'thing'. It's not a video game, or a gun, or anything physically there. It was a turn of phrase. I'm sure I could be caught out if someone said 'have you ever heard of *insert comment I made years ago*' and phrased it like it was an actual, touchable, thing.

My brain isn't working today, but I hope that made sense :blushing:

He has used the terminology himself, he cannot possibly say he has never heard of it.

 

[Really?]

I think it was just a sneaky way of introducing him firing guns and how at ease (or even elated) he is with them.

IMO if OP would have answered yes, he has heard the term......no vid would have been needed.

 

[MeeBee]

But he didn't say "no" didn't he?

I thought he said he didn't remembering saying it. That is when Nel asked OP if he wanted to see the video and OP said "yes". Big mistake...IMO. Roux should have objected before OP could answer.

New did not ask if OP wanted to see the video. Nel was asking about a video and OP said Nel should play it. Logically, if he was going to deliberately lie about something, he never would have told Nel to play it because he would know what it shows, if that makes sense. I agree it was a mistake and Roux sure jumped up fast to stop it lol. But I think OP just didn't know he shouldn't have said it and, again, if he'd had anything to hide I don't think he'd have offered.

Grace holl will probably say this all way better than me lol.

 

[G.bng]

Bit of a trick Nel pulled there. :wink:

If someone's shooting and they say that was a zombie-stopper, it means you've made a volley of good shots (i.e. that would stop zombies).

It's something guy's would say when playing Call of Duty and similar.

No more of a trick than DT introducing a Sky video the other day also on the basis of it being in the public domain.

 

[MeeBee]

Sure, OP suffers from selective memory or selective anemia, take you pick .

Selective anemia for 300.

 

[katydid23]

All that really matters is does this give us any further indication of what happened that night.

I don't think it does, and if I was Reeva's family I'd be far more concerned that they start producing something valid.

It removes focus from the more important issues. This is lawyer point-scoring more than anything else.

I disagree. It does shed light on the happenings of that night, because it shows a few important things. It shows how quickly and effortlessly OP can put his legs back on.

And the way he initially answered Nel was dishonest, so it may taint some of his earlier testimony.

Also, it shows how much he loved firing his guns, the delight he had. So it sheds doubt on todays testimony where he denied shooting out the sunroof and the restaurant incident.

 

[jay-jay]

Neil asked him if he knew what a zombie stopper is and he said no. He asked him if there was a video of him that included the phrase would he be surprised? OP said no. OP probably doesn't even remember saying it. Again, can't see how that is lying.

Once certain words and phrases have entered 'ones' vocabulary, you don't forget what they are .. and he knew and fully understood what the term meant when he used it so confidently, so there is no way he doesn't remember what if means now.

 

[danzn16]

I have not been following the threads and haven't heard anything more about the case than what is discussed on CNN on my car rides to work in the morning. They played his view and plea to the family and he really sounds sincere. I kept up early after the day it happened so I thought he was for sure guilty at that time because it made no sense. My question to you Websleuthers is what do the majority of you think? Guilty or not since you've seen the evidence? Is he just a great actor?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[beach]

Don't know if this video would be important enough, but in the UK disclosure is an ongoing obligation for both sides except once the trial has begun, or a few days before when 4 copies of each sides evidence files have to be filed at court, it can only be by permission of the court and the other side can object as has happened now.

Exactly. The rule of reciprocal discovery - gives both sides a chance to object to admission and keeps everyone from getting blindsided.

However, I understood enough to know that Nel was saying the defense "opened the door" on direct ... that it should be able to come in that way. What I missed is what Roux did on direct that made Nel make that argument. I don't know what he was basing that on.