Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where are the timestamps from the Stipps' testimony coming from? Aren't the Stipps the ones with the clock set at a few minutes ahead? I can't remember.

To hear Roux tell it, all the witnesses must have been telling time by the same clock, when, in fact, they weren't. It's ridiculous.

The only timestamps I've gone by during trial are those to/from security and those to/from OP's phone (both of which are verified by phone records), because there are too many discrepancies regarding the other times, which I think can be explained by the fact that all the witnesses were telling time by a different clock.

That's correct SS, the Stipps stated that several times too. Oh well, Roux wasn't listening.
 
Roux now recounting what witnesses heard, and at what time.....
 
That is untrue... Stipp spoke of arguing with his wife about wanting to go over and help, getting dressed, dealing with security and then driving over to OP's. That was faster than OP, according to his version, got around to trying to "save" RS.

Roux's 'timeline' is horribly misrepresentative of what we have heard over the course of this trial, isn't it .. and quite obviously, deliberately so.
 
Roux seems to be saying Dr Stipp deliberately perjured himself to aid the state's case.

He does seem to be implying that - I did not get that impression from Dr Stipp. I think he was mistaken about a couple of things but I didn't perceive him to be deliberately deceptive
 
R: Mr Johnson and Mrs Burger; 'It was not as if there was a fight, it was as if they were being attacked'. That was in his notes.

So we know there was anxious screaming by a man, and we know we have a man screaming help help help in that time...
 
It's been a while since I heard the original testimony but as I recall it was all pretty consistent.... Argument, banging, shots fired, more banging, help help help, phone calls made. iirc
 
R: What we do know..on state's case, there was an argument, NOT screaming, then the shots....We know there were shots. The woman screaming, we've dealt with.
 
R: She (??) heard crying...her husband said, it's not a woman, it's Oscar.
 
Oscar Trial Channel ‏@OscarTrial199 42s
Roux: on state's case, Van der Merwe heard argument, not screaming, and then the shots.
 
R: What was this screaming? It could have been the deceased, in one version. But we know the screaming heard by (some witnesses) was the sound heard by (other witnessez)...short time lapse between the first sounds and the screaming...

Roux says that's consistent with the accused's evidence.
 
Justice for Reeva
Reeva-Steenkamp-008.jpg
Reeva Steenkamp regularly used her Twitter account to denounce violence against women. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty Images​
 
I can't catch the name of witness R is talking about. Mrs Masawani?
 
Oscar Trial Channel ‏@OscarTrial199 51s
Roux calls Nhlengethwa a brilliant witness, supported by Mrs Motshwane.


The_Citizen_Reporter ‏@CitiReporter 1m
Roux spending a lot of time of the screaming heard. Defence say OP screams like a woman. #OscarTrial #citi - ^CC



There you have it! It's a cold hard fact.
 
The real key to the case is the 'argument' heard by witnesses. This is the true motive for her murder.
 
Roux doing math now to calculate witness approx times, to show it fits with OP's version and other witnesses.
 
Roux is all muddled up with his times! !!! He is tailoring the evidence! Can someone tell him to shut up!
 
I think I've been relatively dispassionate (and willing to be proved wrong on my gut feeling regarding OP's guilt or not) when watching this trial. However, this version of events is making me cross.
 
R: The state must ignore the first sounds, and the sounds made by the cricket bat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
947
Total visitors
1,091

Forum statistics

Threads
627,481
Messages
18,546,082
Members
241,302
Latest member
mzungu
Back
Top