Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[jay-jay]

Right arm just above Elbow.

OK, thanks for everyone's replies on this .. I had it in my mind it was higher up and more toward the inside (I've no idea why I thought that), so it does seem that where W was grabbing his outer arm was roughly around the same sort of area then.

My god, yes, what a horrible, horrible injury (I knew already that it was a virtual amputation .. just that I didn't know it was actually lower down than I had in my mind). What with the hip and the head injury, that poor girl was absolutely mutilated by Pistorius.

 

[wb180]

I was speaking of what I might do in that situation. Not trying to rationalize his actions. I've said it many times before in this forum, but I'll say it again. I DO NOT CARE whether he's found guilty or innocent. I don't think he's cute, or feel sorry for him, or want to diagnose him with a personality disorder, etc. I'm interested in the trial...that's it.

Putting "people' in a post might get it past the mods, but it's still condescending. jmo

Saying you don't care doesn't mean you aren't rationalizing his actions. I do not see anything that is condescending.

You say it is reasonable for OP to not call the ambulance given the facts.

And lets look at the facts. His loved one just got shot four times. And he calls his mate. Doesn't call ambulance. And you trying to argue if your loved one had the same facts, you would do the same.

Looks like rationalizing to me.

 

[james83]

If someone is bleeding then what you need to do is call 911, 999 or whatever your national equivalent is and then let them talk you through how to minimise the bleeding by applying pressure etc (If you do n ot already know about first aid) whilst the ambulance is en route. it makes no sense whatsoever to stick the person in your car and allow to bleed to death whilst you drive them to the hospital.

I am endlessly amazed by the lengths people will go to try and rationalise or defend OP's actions.

Can't remember who it was but a few night's ago the topic of Frank and how suspicious the whole situation with him was came up, one poster said something along the lines of, well Frank must have quite a lonely life so perhaps he'd been having a drink or a smoke and wouldn't have been a reliable witness, Lol you can't make some of this stuff up, instead of saying yeah actually it does raise eyebrows that Frank could be in the same house hear nothing and magically appear outside a few minutes later, someone would rather come up with a ridiculous statement like that.

 

[Viper]

This is really interesting. I hadn't heard about this. I have tried searching for more information and can't find anything. Could you possibly provide a link or let us know where you heard this.

Many thanks.

A link to which issue? There were several mentioned.

If it is the animation, that is troublesome for the DT, too much time passing by while OP is doing his Ninja act and screaming blood curdling screams, and then not screaming (or just crying?) while he just sat there holding Reeva in his arms for five minutes on the bathroom floor. I don't believe that Nel and Judge Masipa would simply allow Roux to play the video or allow it in to evidence. We already have a corrections officer pretending to be an expert on broken hearts and a forensic geologist pretending to be an expert on ballistics, pathology, sounds, light bulbs, and short people used to recreate crime scenes. The last thing this three ring circus needs is to see this fairy tale put to full animation and played in open court.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I'm trying attachment of a document the first time ...

Wowww FG Thank you .. You have found so many motives for an argument I'm sure most of the subjects you have mentioned could be relevant .. I posted another scenaria though as I remembered my dream was something related to cinema lol not that I no way believe any kind of supersitions but that just kind of inspired me a theory..:seeya:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Wonder who the Defense will call this week?

Roux has the psychologist up his sleeve. I think he is using he/she as his most important witness. Probably the reason why that witness has not appeared before now.

 

[TorisMom003]

Roux has the psychologist up his sleeve. I think he is using he/she as his most important witness. Probably the reason why that witness has not appeared before now.

Then I don't see how Roux (Defense) can be wrapped up by Tuesday. I can't imagine that Nel is going to ask the psychologist only a handful of questions as he did with the first 4 or so witnesses.

MOO

 

[Feynman]

Huh?? Why would the so called intruder enter the home through an open widow then shut the window by slamming it shut???? Doesn't work for me.

OP didn't say that. He said he heard the window slide open and then slam against the frame. In other words, he has the window sliding open until it slams into something, which he called "the frame". That's my take.

 

[Viper]

Whoa whoa whoa.

<modsnip>. I'll give her that much! But it spits in the face of the fact that South Africa is now ruled by the majority of its citizens. It is the minority that is crying about equal rights to career opportunities, especially in government and positions of authority, but also in domestic opportunities as well.

 

[Lyra500]

I was speaking of what I might do in that situation. Not trying to rationalize his actions. I've said it many times before in this forum, but I'll say it again. I DO NOT CARE whether he's found guilty or innocent. I don't think he's cute, or feel sorry for him, or want to diagnose him with a personality disorder, etc. I'm interested in the trial...that's it.

Putting "people' in a post might get it past the mods, but it's still condescending. jmo

I am sorry if that is how it comes across. I thought you were explaining what you would do as a supporting argument for OP's actions on the night in question and I am afraid I did find it amazing.

I will remove the final sentence as I take your point.

 

[soozieqtips]

OP didn't say that. He said he heard the window slide open and then slam against the frame. In other words, he has the window sliding open until it slams into something, which he called "the frame". That's my take.

That's correct. I think the only 'slam' he mentioned was with regards to the toilet door.

 

[Giles]

A link to which issue? There were several mentioned.

If it is the animation, that is troublesome for the DT, too much time passing by while OP is doing his Ninja act and screaming blood curdling screams, and then not screaming (or just crying?) while he just sat there holding Reeva in his arms for five minutes on the bathroom floor. I don't believe that Nel and Judge Masipa would simply allow Roux to play the video or allow it in to evidence. We already have a corrections officer pretending to be an expert on broken hearts and a forensic geologist pretending to be an expert on ballistics, pathology, sounds, light bulbs, and short people used to recreate crime scenes. The last thing this three ring circus needs is to see this fairy tale put to full animation and played in open court.

Thanks Viper. Yes, it was the animation I was interested in. I agree that it wouldn't likely be admitted as evidence. I did however think the Defense might use it during their closing argument as a visual aid.

It was a company called 'The Evidence Room' that they hired to make a reconstruction. It looks quite expensive, so if they don't use it, that in itself is pretty damning.

It has been quite a circus, hasn't it? I must admit, I have quite enjoyed all the court theatrics - I wouldn't say no to an animated send off...

 

[soozieqtips]

Then I don't see how Roux (Defense) can be wrapped up by Tuesday. I can't imagine that Nel is going to ask the psychologist only a handful of questions as he did with the first 4 or so witnesses.

MOO

BBM - He never said which Tuesday. Could be a Tuesday in July at this rate :floorlaugh:

 

[jay-jay]

Then I don't see how Roux (Defense) can be wrapped up by Tuesday. I can't imagine that Nel is going to ask the psychologist only a handful of questions as he did with the first 4 or so witnesses.

MOO

Well, I'm not so sure .. I've got a feeling that he will dismiss most of it because it's all just speculative stuff .. none of it is fact, and anything to do with psychology can be twisted to fit, I would imagine, so I can't really see him bothering with too much cross-examining of it to be honest.

 

[Zuri]

How was the "intruder" to have supposedly gained access to the bathroom? From the ladder that was shown in the pics? Ladders make a lot of noise when placed up against the house. Far more noise than a window opening IME when my gutters are cleaned. Or was the "intruder" to have entered from some other way and just holed themselves up in the toilet?

I apologize if this has been asked and answered.

 

[jay-jay]

Can I ask .. how long after the last witness/cross examination is it before the DT and the PT present their closing arguments to the court?

 

[Giles]

BBM - He never said which Tuesday. Could be a Tuesday in July at this rate :floorlaugh:

Roux better be worried if he goes past Tuesday. M'Lady doesn't seem like someone to be messing with!

 

[Ncl1968]

i would be very interested in hearing the contents of that 66 second call.

That 66 seconds tape is more than likely on ROUTE66

 

[lithgow1]

Can I ask .. how long after the last witness/cross examination is it before the DT and the PT present their closing arguments to the court?

From memory, the judge on the TV said they would only have a couple of days to prepare it. M'Lady will give them a time frame, but it will be days rather than weeks.

 

[Giles]

Wonder who the Defense will call this week?

Does anyone think Roux will call someone to testify about the 'tampering and contamination' of the crime scene? If so, who?