He must have thought it was a 'serious threat' to have said to Reeva to 'call the police' then.
But if he was so convinced that it was real that this was going to be the FIRST time he called the police, then why didn't he sound the alarm?
Another bit regarding OP's hubris and stupidity
The whole story about being shot at on the highway by someone in a black mercedes was introduced into evidence by the Defence for the ONLY purpose of establishing OP's state of mind…i.e. that OP would have a reasonable basis for fearing for his life on the 14th of february.
The fact that OP remembers this story in minute detail (what exit he took, which way he turned, where he went to leave his car, etc…), that he said it was the first and only time someone had shot at him, that it was a scary and memorable event…BUT then OP can't remember :
- Who he called for help
- Who came and picked him up
- How his car was retrieved
…this is so mind boggling it's ridiculous.
Even if one would forget who they had called at that time, they could easily, in their minds, put themselves in the same position, relive it mentally, and figure out who they would call in such a situation and in such a location…that would certainly jog one's memory to the point they would remember : 'Ah yes, I remember now, I called Bob and he came to pick me up'
The fact that OP does not remember is because he does not want to name anybody…because that person would say '...that never happened'…
So OP fabricated or exaggerated a whole story about being shot at to establish a small, rather insignificant, element in a big picture that would paint a fearful state of mind… but instead of accomplishing this goal, he ended up being seen as a liar that had enough imagination and gall to fabricate an entire story and deliver it on the stand, under oath, to possibly better is Defence slightly ….unbelievable !!!
Nel's definitely going for the fight starting off in the bedroom.
I'm waiting for his examination of the bedroom door damage. I think it's 4 bullets fired, one unloaded from the gun by police but were there 6 - a magazine full ?
Dirty Nelly : I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking does he think there were 5 shots or only 4 .... you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
I don't think it's that significant either - except that it seems to show that OP is trying to find things in the room that he can say were 'changed', when the light could easily have been on anyway. Making much of it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Clarice Stander had the phone. But she could have given it to his sister, who was there, and she may have kept it.
The whole story about being shot at on the highway by someone in a black mercedes was introduced into evidence by the Defence for the ONLY purpose of establishing OP's state of mind…i.e. that OP would have a reasonable basis for fearing for his life on the 14th of february.
The fact that OP remembers this story in minute detail (what exit he took, which way he turned, where he went to leave his car, etc…), that he said it was the first and only time someone had shot at him, that it was a scary and memorable event…BUT then OP can't remember :
- Who he called for help
- Who came and picked him up
- How his car was retrieved
…this is so mind boggling it's ridiculous.
Even if one would forget who they had called at that time, they could easily, in their minds, put themselves in the same position, relive it mentally, and figure out who they would call in such a situation and in such a location…that would certainly jog one's memory to the point they would remember : 'Ah yes, I remember now, I called Bob and he came to pick me up'
The fact that OP does not remember is because he does not want to name anybody…because that person would say '...that never happened'…
So OP fabricated or exaggerated a whole story about being shot at to establish a small, rather insignificant, element in a big picture that would paint a fearful state of mind… but instead of accomplishing this goal, he ended up being seen as a liar that had enough imagination and gall to fabricate an entire story and deliver it on the stand, under oath, to possibly better is Defence slightly ….unbelievable !!!
I don't think it's that significant either - except that it seems to show that OP is trying to find things in the room that he can say were 'changed', when the light could easily have been on anyway. Making much of it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Clarice Stander had the phone. But she could have given it to his sister, who was there, and she may have kept it.
Who handed the phone in do you remember?
Could be, if she made the calls.
I think it was handed over via OP's legal team around the bail hearing, maybe Oldwage ?
OP is confronted by Nel about the fact that the small fan could not have been plugged into the multi-plug (extension cord) because no slots were available.
In response to that, OP starts rambling about him owning 3 fans and that 1 of them he had lent to a friend who stayed over at his place some time ago….bla, bla, bla
That is a textbook avoidance response from someone who is being confronted by an impossibility that unravels the lie…. i.e. start adding totally unrelated and irrelevant facts that add nothing and explain nothing in regards to the current situation
OP could have very well said : 'but I sometimes enjoy peanut butter in the morning…' in response to Nel's question and it would have made just as much sense as the story about that 3rd fan !!
One must remember that Defence attorneys did not make up this story…OP told this story to his attorneys and they used it because it was relevant and useful to make their case.
The reality is they must be kicking themselves for not having investigated that story before putting it on record…big mistake !!
OP is confronted by Nel about the fact that the small fan could not have been plugged into the multi-plug (extension cord) because no slots were available.
In response to that, OP starts rambling about him owning 3 fans and that 1 of them he had lent to a friend who stayed over at his place some time ago….bla, bla, bla
That is a textbook avoidance response from someone who is being confronted by an impossibility that unravels the lie…. i.e. start adding totally unrelated and irrelevant facts that add nothing and explain nothing in regards to the current situation
OP could have very well said : 'but I sometimes enjoy peanut butter in the morning…' in response to Nel's question and it would have made just as much sense as the story about that 3rd fan !!
I like watching Nel's face when OP wanders off on these fantasies, while the two Rouxs slide further and further under the table.
I just hope that justice is done, and the guilty are punished hard.
I don't think there's punishment hard enough for taking another life and destroying that of others. - even if he does time (I personally doubt it) he'll still have some sort of life once he's out
probably nothing and already covered, but has OP been asked why he actuality decided to get up and move the fans into the room and close the curtains that night
Both he and Reeva were awake and the heat that night seems to be an issue, Having the fans placed where they were in the doorway made the most sense by dragging the cooler air in from outside.
Can understand if it was to turn them off because of the noise, but that doesn't seem to be the case
OP is confronted by Nel about the fact that the small fan could not have been plugged into the multi-plug (extension cord) because no slots were available.
In response to that, OP starts rambling about him owning 3 fans and that 1 of them he had lent to a friend who stayed over at his place some time ago….bla, bla, bla
That is a textbook avoidance response from someone who is being confronted by an impossibility that unravels the lie…. i.e. start adding totally unrelated and irrelevant facts that add nothing and explain nothing in regards to the current situation
OP could have very well said : 'but I sometimes enjoy peanut butter in the morning…' in response to Nel's question and it would have made just as much sense as the story about that 3rd fan !!
It's a good job I'm not giving evidence in my own defence. I have a habit of answering questions like that all the time. So the third fan is a red herring then. Of less relevance than the jeans on the duvet, but more relevant than his broken window.
OP could have very well said : 'but I sometimes enjoy peanut butter in the morning…' in response to Nel's question and it would have made just as much sense as the story about that 3rd fan !!
One must remember that Defence attorneys did not make up this story…OP told this story to his attorneys and they used it because it was relevant and useful to make their case.
The reality is they must be kicking themselves for not having investigated that story before putting it on record…big mistake !!
Did they never say, 'remember you'll be asked questions about it'
I like watching Nel's face when OP wanders off on these fantasies, while the two Rouxs slide further and further under the table.
Indeed…some people seem shocked or unimpressed by Nel's "theatrics"…
I believe Nel is purposefully spreading it pretty thick at times…but one must keep in mind what type of answers OP is giving him and one could not remain straight-faced…IMO
IIRC His ex, Samantha Taylor testified that OP woke her up a few times during the night when he heard noises yet I'm sure OP testified that it was only on one occasion - Hmmm not sure who I believe <rolls eyes>
probably nothing and already covered, but has OP been asked why he actuality decided to get up and move the fans into the room and close the curtains that night
Both he and Reeva were awake and the heat that night seems to be an issue, Having the fans placed where they were in the doorway made the most sense by dragging the cooler air in from outside.
Can understand if it was to turn them off because of the noise, but that doesn't seem to be the case
He says that he would normally not leave them like that when he's asleep because of it meaning an insecure/open balcony door. Claims that Reeva had agreed to do the honours before she fell asleep, seeing as how he was nodding off first.
The whole story about being shot at on the highway by someone in a black mercedes was introduced into evidence by the Defence for the ONLY purpose of establishing OP's state of mind…i.e. that OP would have a reasonable basis for fearing for his life on the 14th of february.
The fact that OP remembers this story in minute detail (what exit he took, which way he turned, where he went to leave his car, etc…), that he said it was the first and only time someone had shot at him, that it was a scary and memorable event…BUT then OP can't remember :
- Who he called for help
- Who came and picked him up
- How his car was retrieved
…this is so mind boggling it's ridiculous.
Even if one would forget who they had called at that time, they could easily, in their minds, put themselves in the same position, relive it mentally, and figure out who they would call in such a situation and in such a location…that would certainly jog one's memory to the point they would remember : 'Ah yes, I remember now, I called Bob and he came to pick me up'
The fact that OP does not remember is because he does not want to name anybody…because that person would say '...that never happened'…
So OP fabricated or exaggerated a whole story about being shot at to establish a small, rather insignificant, element in a big picture that would paint a fearful state of mind… but instead of accomplishing this goal, he ended up being seen as a liar that had enough imagination and gall to fabricate an entire story and deliver it on the stand, under oath, to possibly better is Defence slightly ….unbelievable !!!
if it lodges in the mind of m'lady when she is deliberating it was a worthwhile ploy, it will have done its job, she might believe it, people make stuff up, even under oath. it's the adversarial system, it ain't perfect .
Indeed…some people seem shocked or unimpressed by Nel's "theatrics"…
I believe Nel is purposefully spreading it pretty thick at times…but one must keep in mind what type of answers OP is giving him and one could not remain straight-faced…IMO
When Nel looks bemused and in the judge's direction I always imagine he's counting the flying pigs...
Comments
Another bit regarding OP's hubris and stupidity
The whole story about being shot at on the highway by someone in a black mercedes was introduced into evidence by the Defence for the ONLY purpose of establishing OP's state of mind…i.e. that OP would have a reasonable basis for fearing for his life on the 14th of february.
The fact that OP remembers this story in minute detail (what exit he took, which way he turned, where he went to leave his car, etc…), that he said it was the first and only time someone had shot at him, that it was a scary and memorable event…BUT then OP can't remember :
- Who he called for help
- Who came and picked him up
- How his car was retrieved
…this is so mind boggling it's ridiculous.
Even if one would forget who they had called at that time, they could easily, in their minds, put themselves in the same position, relive it mentally, and figure out who they would call in such a situation and in such a location…that would certainly jog one's memory to the point they would remember : 'Ah yes, I remember now, I called Bob and he came to pick me up'
The fact that OP does not remember is because he does not want to name anybody…because that person would say '...that never happened'…
So OP fabricated or exaggerated a whole story about being shot at to establish a small, rather insignificant, element in a big picture that would paint a fearful state of mind… but instead of accomplishing this goal, he ended up being seen as a liar that had enough imagination and gall to fabricate an entire story and deliver it on the stand, under oath, to possibly better is Defence slightly ….unbelievable !!!
It was last seen heading down the motorway in a black mercedes
No…I don't think that info was released.
How did this ever sound like a good idea
Well it just doesn't does it.
I'm sure most of us, if not all, would remember who rescued us from such a situation.
Did he say why he pulled over and didn't just drive home because I would keep moving less vulnerable that sitting at the side of the road.
Could be, if she made the calls.
I think it was handed over via OP's legal team around the bail hearing, maybe Oldwage ?
The 3rd fan bit was quite revealing IMO
OP is confronted by Nel about the fact that the small fan could not have been plugged into the multi-plug (extension cord) because no slots were available.
In response to that, OP starts rambling about him owning 3 fans and that 1 of them he had lent to a friend who stayed over at his place some time ago….bla, bla, bla
That is a textbook avoidance response from someone who is being confronted by an impossibility that unravels the lie…. i.e. start adding totally unrelated and irrelevant facts that add nothing and explain nothing in regards to the current situation
OP could have very well said : 'but I sometimes enjoy peanut butter in the morning…' in response to Nel's question and it would have made just as much sense as the story about that 3rd fan !!
He drove to a busy restaurant and sat in the carpark
I ain't one of them that's for sure ;-)
One must remember that Defence attorneys did not make up this story…OP told this story to his attorneys and they used it because it was relevant and useful to make their case.
The reality is they must be kicking themselves for not having investigated that story before putting it on record…big mistake !!
I like watching Nel's face when OP wanders off on these fantasies, while the two Rouxs slide further and further under the table.
Don't quote me on this, but I believe he said he was too frightened and emotional… he went into a public mall parking lot to leave his car…
Makes sense he would say that… no way of verifying that someone had left their car there !
So do I
Unlike a lot of people I'm amazed how calm Nell manages to keep I'd be showing my frustration a lot more.
Unbelievable! So tricky!
I don't think there's punishment hard enough for taking another life and destroying that of others. - even if he does time (I personally doubt it) he'll still have some sort of life once he's out
Both he and Reeva were awake and the heat that night seems to be an issue, Having the fans placed where they were in the doorway made the most sense by dragging the cooler air in from outside.
Can understand if it was to turn them off because of the noise, but that doesn't seem to be the case
It's a good job I'm not giving evidence in my own defence. I have a habit of answering questions like that all the time. So the third fan is a red herring then. Of less relevance than the jeans on the duvet, but more relevant than his broken window.
Did they never say, 'remember you'll be asked questions about it'
Indeed…some people seem shocked or unimpressed by Nel's "theatrics"…
I believe Nel is purposefully spreading it pretty thick at times…but one must keep in mind what type of answers OP is giving him and one could not remain straight-faced…IMO
He says that he would normally not leave them like that when he's asleep because of it meaning an insecure/open balcony door. Claims that Reeva had agreed to do the honours before she fell asleep, seeing as how he was nodding off first.
if it lodges in the mind of m'lady when she is deliberating it was a worthwhile ploy, it will have done its job, she might believe it, people make stuff up, even under oath. it's the adversarial system, it ain't perfect .
When Nel looks bemused and in the judge's direction I always imagine he's counting the flying pigs...