Trial Discussion Thread #23 - 14.04.11, Day 21

[zwiebel]

So...Roux offered to "assist Mr Nel"....

..... by calling for an early tea-break for him


(You can't make this stuff up) :floorlaugh:

Yes, I noticed that. I didn't notice Nel thanking him though.

I'd just crumple into silence if the judge rebuked me like that. I'd be a terrible lawyer.

 

[Rumpole]

Nel has lost the plot. Does not know left from right... and must be the ONLY person who does not know that OP referenced the earlier paint job(2010) where sensors were removed... that was WHY he thought they MIGHT have been removed during the renovations at the time of the incident.

OP is not explaining it well... but Nel is also NOT understanding that you can take a sensor off the wall... it will still be "working" where you store it.. and not show as a fault when you activate the system... but it is still not on the wall sensing intruders as it were.

Not that any of this matters ....because it is all a silly sideshow.

 

[soozieqtips]

You can say a witness is lying but you can'y call them a liar....there is a difference.

Yes. I think 'you're lying' refers to something specific they're lying about, but 'you're a liar' means they're a liar in general?

 

[Cher352]

Another question...
Do they use a court stenographer in SA or does the Judge and her 2 assistants only use their notes?

 

[AlexUK]

I'm a bit confused about the jeans/duvet/blow up photo thingy. Is Roux saying the jeans are not in fact on top of the duvet....that it's just the camera angle?

If ever I happen to get murdered I want Mr Nel to prosecute the murderer. *leaves note in will*

 

[shane13]

I've been stunned every time he's accused Oscar of lying. Outright. Improper.

By rights, Oscar could say the same to Nel! Haha! Saying "you're lying" repeatedly could be seen to sway the judge and subconsciously imprinting "fact and truth" in her mind, inaccurately.

Also, Roux should've been able to tell PT witnesses during cross that they're "lying". He never did, once.

Well that was my Q just above--can attys do it in slightly different wording?

E.g.,many times Roux told witness, "that's impossible." On some of those occassions a few weeks ago, I took exception and detailed the physics of echoes and numerous other things to show that when Roux said something was impossible--he was the one lying or getting it wrong.

So it seems though attys can virtually say the witness is lying--but in other words. But it may not be the case--for either side.

 

[whiterum]

But here I cannot resist, so please forgive me it's too appropriate: "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

LOL, I'm sure that someone's pants are on fire during this cross but somehow I don't think it's Nel's.

 

[MeeBee]

He has done that several times between yesterday and today. I thought it was strange, don't think that is allowed here in US, is it?

That and so many other objections by opposing lawyers I am use to hearing, such as conjecture, argumentative, leading, badgering, etc. It seems like there as hardly any objections. Strange for me.

Because there are no juries there are a lot of things that are allowed that wouldn't be here. It makes things very different. I was surprised to hear Nel calling him a liar since you would not be able to do that her, accept in closing arguments, and I'm not used to it but just figured that was another thing that was allowed. Guess it isn't.

 

[Gryffindor]

I wonder how his dog managed to get inside the house to wreak havoc downstairs , or was it already inside ?

That was a time with Sam Taylor, not 14th Feb

 

[zwiebel]

I'm not sure Roux needs to call anyone a liar; his 'That cannot be' covers all corners....

Nel's stolen that once, but it didn't really suit him. I'm trying to think up a phrase for Nel. Maybe; 'That's hardly possible'?

Mmmmm. Bit rubbish that one, on second thoughts....

 

[whiterum]

i'm a bit confused about the jeans/duvet/blow up photo thingy. Is roux saying the jeans are not in fact on top of the duvet....that it's just the camera angle?

If ever i happen to get murdered i want mr nel to prosecute the murderer. *leaves note in will*

lol !!

 

[Interested Bystander]

I've been stunned every time he's accused Oscar of lying. Outright. Improper.

By rights, Oscar could say the same to Nel! Haha! Saying "you're lying" repeatedly could be seen to sway the judge and subconsciously imprinting "fact and truth" in her mind, inaccurately.

Also, Roux should've been able to tell PT witnesses during cross that they're "lying". He never did, once.

Oh but he did.

 

[AlexUK]

It faces the bed. In the police photo the stereo (with that annoying blue LED) sits on top of a drawer/something cabinet.

Next to the cabinet are two speakers. The black fan is on the left of the speaker. In photo, not plugged in.

His bedroom was very messy wasn't it....all those trailing wires and stuff littered about....and him a double amputee and all!

 

[zwiebel]

They're back....

 

[zwiebel]

O sounds stuffed up as though he's been crying.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I wonder how his dog managed to get inside the house to wreak havoc downstairs , or was it already inside ?

And without setting off the alarm (that he always sets)

 

[MeeBee]

Oh but he did.

But did he say, "you're lying" or "you're a liar" because I honestly do not remember him say it outright like that, though I could be wrong. I just don't remember him saying that. Insinuating they're lying and outright saying it are two different things.

 

[whiterum]

That was a time with Sam Taylor, not 14th Feb

Yes I know but wasn't he just as concerned about security then ?

 

[zwiebel]

Photos again.

N: It may take a minute

R: Mr N must look at image 185, you may THINK the duvet is on top...we have an expert witness....they are NEXT to the duvet, not on top...photo deception

N argues he is using zoomed pics. Judge accepts.

In my opinion, they are on top. Screen shot someone! Brand new jeans, with label?

 

[Lyra500]

I'm just assuming they didn't bother fingerprinting anything as both OP's and Reeva's fingerprints would have been all over the house anyway, just from general day to day living there .. it wouldn't have proved anything one way or the other if they had got fingerprints from the window or the toilet cubicle door, etc.

If Reeva's prints were not on the window frame it would have been another element of OP's story which could not actually be true. He insists he heard the bathroom window slide open, the only person who could have slid it open is Reeva.