Possibly he has other commitments.
It's odd tho.
He would come accross better if he was commenting on defence witnesses we had already heard.
His job is basically to pull all the evidence together. Difficult for him as we are yet to hear the defence evidence.
Probably got his holidays booked and needs paid.
Thanks ..But what I mean is when it's on tv I can watch and join in the forum chat. I am watching on my lappy but it's hard to keep up on this thread as I am having to back and forth
Thanks ..But what I mean is when it's on tv I can watch and join in the forum chat. I am watching on my lappy but it's hard to keep up on this thread as I am having to back and forth
If you open two windows you will be able to keep the sound running and you can flick back and forth
OP was ambiguous. I really think he was just being pedantic. I think he meant the rack was further to the right of the toilet, back against the wall and into the corner alongside the toilet. Possibly 20-30 cms difference to the photo (and technically further back and to the left of the photo shown in court)
Which makes her injuries when she fell difficult to explain?
The defence pathologist has already testified an impression of the rack was imprinted on her back.
Thanks ..But what I mean is when it's on tv I can watch and join in the forum chat. I am watching on my lappy but it's hard to keep up on this thread as I am having to back and forth
If it helps I have two windows open, with live feed smaller as the audio is more important than picture unless of course there are photos.
Aw, I take her point. It would be easier if you could simultaneously watch TV and be on your 'puter chatting on here, instead of moving from tab to tab. You can of course still hear the discussion though.
No ... I am already watching the trial on my lappy. But because I like to watch I have to keep flicking back and forth on my lappy to type on here. So lagging behind in the convo.
The problem for Nel is the longer he lingers on problems with the sound tests, the more it highlights the fact that the state did no tests. However crude the tests were, they were still more than the state bothered to do.
Shame the state didn't test anything to do with sound.
Why? If other witnesses living further away said they heard certain things then a witness living closer is likely to heard something as well?
Was Reeva killed by sound waves?
The judge has indicated this morning the experts evidence is likely irrelevant to the crux of the matter. Will anyone of these forensic experts prove Reeva and her killer were luvved up and not arguing?
The sound levels are critical to the defence case, not the prosecutions.
Out of interest were any of the witnesses we've heard so far actually WOKEN by the second set of noises? Some were woken by the first set, but didn't the others all hear screams before the second set of noises and so weren't woken by that second set?
No ... I am already watching the trial on my lappy. But because I like to watch I have to keep flicking back and forth on my lappy to type on here. So lagging behind in the convo.
Aw, I take her point. It would be easier if you could simultaneously watch TV and be on your 'puter chatting on here, instead of moving from tab to tab. You can of course still hear the discussion though.
That's what I was trying to explain But yes I can hear, but I'm a nosey bugger and want to watch at the same time
Why? If other witnesses living further away said they heard certain things then a witness living closer is likely to heard something as well?
Was Reeva killed by sound waves?
Well it's important when you have some witnesses saying they heard six gun shots and some witnesses refusing to accept they heard a cricket bat. It's important because if these witnesses are placing screams before or after what they believe to be gun shots.. then it needs to be shown that they can't be mistaken. If the defence is going to prove you CAN be mistaken between a bat and a gun... then that becomes quite important because it calls into question the placement of "female screams". It's a key part of the case.
Comments
Possibly he has other commitments.
It's odd tho.
He would come accross better if he was commenting on defence witnesses we had already heard.
His job is basically to pull all the evidence together. Difficult for him as we are yet to hear the defence evidence.
Probably got his holidays booked and needs paid.
whats wrong bella lol?
do you need a link or what?
If you open two windows you will be able to keep the sound running and you can flick back and forth
Shame the state didn't test anything to do with sound.
Which makes her injuries when she fell difficult to explain?
The defence pathologist has already testified an impression of the rack was imprinted on her back.
If it helps I have two windows open, with live feed smaller as the audio is more important than picture unless of course there are photos.
Aw, I take her point. It would be easier if you could simultaneously watch TV and be on your 'puter chatting on here, instead of moving from tab to tab. You can of course still hear the discussion though.
The sound levels are critical to the defence case, not the prosecutions.
No ... I am already watching the trial on my lappy. But because I like to watch I have to keep flicking back and forth on my lappy to type on here. So lagging behind in the convo.
is that clearer
The side upright of the rack. It could work ? I don't know what the gap to wall from the toilet is, has it been stated ?
Did the defence cross-examine this with the State ballistics? Hope they did.
Why? If other witnesses living further away said they heard certain things then a witness living closer is likely to heard something as well?
Was Reeva killed by sound waves?
The judge has indicated this morning the experts evidence is likely irrelevant to the crux of the matter. Will anyone of these forensic experts prove Reeva and her killer were luvved up and not arguing?
But I like to watch them
Out of interest were any of the witnesses we've heard so far actually WOKEN by the second set of noises? Some were woken by the first set, but didn't the others all hear screams before the second set of noises and so weren't woken by that second set?
He is also an expert in pickles, jams and various chutneys.
Would you like us to slow down for you?
That's what I was trying to explain
Well it's important when you have some witnesses saying they heard six gun shots and some witnesses refusing to accept they heard a cricket bat. It's important because if these witnesses are placing screams before or after what they believe to be gun shots.. then it needs to be shown that they can't be mistaken. If the defence is going to prove you CAN be mistaken between a bat and a gun... then that becomes quite important because it calls into question the placement of "female screams". It's a key part of the case.
No ... your stopping me from watching now as I am having keep replying