oh I agree, I think Roux thought that would get Judge siding with OP and she'd see some comparison too, poor little boy , no legs, growing up, .......victim victim,,,,,,,, but don't think it went the way Roux planned, as Masipa just looked bemused at the suggestion of comparison with female victims of DV ,- HUGE mistake by Roux.
The lack of presenting that recording of OP screaming like a woman, which OP admitted that they'd made was simply because OP does not scream like a woman, and you're right, getting Mrs N to demonstrate, when she's ........er.......a..woman, was just daft and proved nothing!
Don’t forget Masipa is herself disabled and probably took Roux’s remarks as a personal insult
On the other hand she may have though if you really want to see a ‘slow burn’ due to a disability and the release of pent up emotions just wait and watch what I can do on 11 September.
…cause I’m going to burn Pistorius’ ass so bad he won’t be able to sit down for 25 years
The replies to the latest tweet from Pistorius' Twitter account are almost infuriating! In response to a user (whom they've labelled a 'troll') saying he's still killed someone, one supporter said everyone makes mistakes! Yeah, that's some little mistake. I can only imagine why it appears that the vast majority of his supporters are female...
He's a pretty darn forceful experienced Lawyer, he's been involved in OP case from the start, did you not realise he'd also represented that Rapper,--- he tried to get the guy off killing 4 boys on a Culpable Homicide Charge where he could have walked free, no jail time.. ...>:( ruthless stuff, he must be made of stern stuff that Vermeulen -
I thought that's why you posted the case, one reason anyway, because of the same Lawyer in that Case and this one ! Crikey -- Nel has his had his work cut out for him- and especially if it goes to Appeal as this Vermeulen's involved!
I think the Vermeulen in the OP trial is Johannes Vermuelen, a forensic analyst for the Prosecution. This is not Willie Vermeulen, advocate and nothing to do with the OP trial.
When cross examining Col von Rensburg he showed crime scene photos and began with official photos, he then showed dark poor focussed official photos to the witness without saying who or when they were taken. It was only after he'd moved on that Roux corrected his mistake was it a deliberate tactic?
Recall the "double tap" assertion, then despite the claim he was 'corrected' by his client he came back after an adjournment with the defence experts will show 'double tap'. It was not till 2 weeks later Roux publicly stated his client had refuted the 'double tap' claim.
The first witness was told it was 'fact' medical evidence would show Reeva never screamed as the first shot was to the head killed her. Nel had to object and read out the details of all 4 shots so the witness was fully informed.
There were numerous times Roux used these tactics, why if your client is telling the truth?
Difficult to read back or reply to posts with crappy wifi here but trying to keep up.:) Changing location tomorrow so may have better wifi thereafter.
Just wanted to say that Roux's Mercedes and Fiat comment and Lois' shame comment just left me open-mouthed at the gall of these people, not to mention Roux bringing in domestic violence as an analogy in his case of all cases. It's great to read the comments underneath the Lois article - heartening to see that so many people get it. I hope Lois can somehow be charged with contempt of court. Surely it's not ok to directly address the prosecutor in an abusive way.
Thanks to TIMM, Sandy and Bat_Gun_Kick et al for great analysis of the legal complexities. :cool:
.. not to mention Roux bringing in domestic violence as an analogy in his case of all cases.
Looking at the Judge's face at the time, I think that Roux had just sealed OP's fate! This is yet another mistake like the one that led to OP going to Weskoppies.
I know Roux's arguments were all bluster and waffle, but can any one tell me if the reason why he didn't call a witness to show that OP screamed like a woman made any sense at all?
Don’t forget Masipa is herself disabled and probably took Roux’s remarks as a personal insult
On the other hand she may have though if you really want to see a ‘slow burn’ due to a disability and the release of pent up emotions just wait and watch what I can do on 11 September.
…cause I’m going to burn Pistorius’ ass so bad he won’t be able to sit down for 25 years
When cross examining Col von Rensburg he showed crime scene photos and began with official photos, he then showed dark poor focussed official photos to the witness without saying who or when they were taken. It was only after he'd moved on that Roux corrected his mistake was it a deliberate tactic?
Recall the "double tap" assertion, then despite the claim he was 'corrected' by his client he came back after an adjournment with the defence experts will show 'double tap'. It was not till 2 weeks later Roux publicly stated his client had refuted the 'double tap' claim.
The first witness was told it was 'fact' medical evidence would show Reeva never screamed as the first shot was to the head killed her. Nel had to object and read out the details of all 4 shots so the witness was fully informed.
There were numerous times Roux used these tactics, why if your client is telling the truth?
There were too many legal errors stated in order to try to confuse the judge
[1] The notion that you need 'reasonable doubt' about each piece of circumstantial evidence in its own right is not correct. It is 'reasonable doubt' across the aggregate of evidence.
[2] The notion that it would be impossible to convict OP of murder if he thought he was shooting at an intruder because it was in fact RS. Then presenting on the one hand an example of PPD (where it isn't murder) and on the other an example of misfiring and hitting a second person in your vicinity by mistake (not your intended target). Neither of these cases makes it "impossible" to convict OP of RS's murder because if he cannot reasonably have believed he was being threatened then he simply shot and it wasn't PPD at all but simply a murder of some kind. Without subjective threat being credible (reasonable), there is NO PPD and therefore there IS malice at the specific person behind the door.
But the defence writes 5 pages as though this is literally wrong law ... and has been wrong law for 70 years.
That can't be a mistake.
[3] They specifically state that disability is a personal attribute, so relevant for mitigation at sentencing, not charge level, but then go on to state that because of his disability, he might not have any negligence at all, which might make the difference between acquittal and culpable homicide. But that is a difference in charge level. The very thing which personal attributes are not supposed to be able to effect.
Either they don't know how to reason or they are not intent upon doing it correctly.
Me too. Uncle A thinks by appearing bizarrely smiley and positive people will fall for the hype and believe that everything's going really, really well. Not so.
I noticed the difference between Uncle A and co over the two days. Thursday was the inane grins from him and his wife, dressed in a bright red dress as they sat through Nel's 'show'. The manchild yawned alot and probably played with
his toy cars on the bench.
Friday was very different. All heads up to front, wife dressed in black, a much more serious tone displayed all round for the 'money day'.
I can't help think they got their days mixed up...
Oh but I can say anything I like now and claim my words are the result of months of pent up mental frustration and anguish which has been slowly building up as this trial proceeded only to be released involuntary at the sound of my phone ringing
The discovery that Hilton Botha expressed "the linen was on one side of the bed" which the defence infer to mean "the duvet was on the bed" and which OP then testified that Botha had said, is open to interpretation. Botha made many other errors, some of which we can absolutely prove viz.
Yeah, I was going to ask about OP testifying that Botha said this and that. Unless Botha is on the stand, I can't see what OP saying he said carrying much weight. Is the testimony OP is quoting from Botha's appearance at the bail hearing? Botha hasn't seemed to cover himself in glory in this trial.
No. The cops didnt check under so did not eliminate possibility there was a long trail to the bed and on the duvet and they just happened to line up. Quite possible if part of same trail.
The same way the trajectories of the bullets just happened to line up with RS as she fell until one struck her in the head and killed her you mean?
Or is it the same way OP happened to shout at the exact same moment RS stopped emptying her bladder and then slammed the door?
Perhaps it's the same way OP turned towards the amplifier as RS had JUST rounded the corner into bathroom (since she opened the window and had not yet gone into toilet cubicle), so he happened to miss her again by just moments?
I am sorry to announce to you that if you think there is any chance in the universe of the blood trail being attributed to something "just happening" in this, of all, cases - then you need to re-examine the concept of reasonable doubt and the role of probability in a criminal trial... :D:D
Forget that explanation now because it is not going to form part of the judgement. The fact remains police disturbance was a major part of the defence case and the policemen were never tasked about the major level of disturbance in the bedroom not a single question was put relating to the fans or the duvet. Defence case cannot continuously adapt itself during the course of a trial - it's against the rules.
The same incidentally applies to OP saying that the gun went off four times "accidentally".- having never mentioned in the past that there was any such accident or involuntariness involved. It's too significant of an omission on the part of defence (truth telling). It also contradicts Roux's perspective on the shooting earlier in the case since it was "two double taps" which cannot be the same thing as "4 rapid shots in a panic".
So it was something OP started making up on the stand.
That's the reason they finally have been forced into pleading "nonpathological INCAPACITY" (complete absence of blame)- something which has about as much chance of succeeding as of winning the lottery.
Of course, Roux had to put this argument, because the inference from OP saying "I do not take any blame for firing shots" if, in fact, he did make errors, is that he is not, in fact, mourning RS at all. If it was a "deeply loving relationship" and he made errors he can't turn around and take no blame now. It contradicts the meaning of the word "Love" IMO. I mean - just thinking about actual loving couples and how it would feel if you killed one and realized you acted badly at a certain point and this was the result.
Strikes me if his acquittal bid fails then the conclusion must be he is a heartless bastard. Even at CH that applies. Which then has the effect of making the original murder charge much more probable lol ;-)
What a bunch of sympathetic, empathetic charmers the Pistorius family are, hey? Of course, Nel is the one who should be ashamed in all this, not the guy who killed someone who had maybe 60 years of life ahead of her and deprived her aging parents of the baby of their family. I really don't think Oscar has one iota of guilt over what he has done.
absolutely unbelievable. the sheer arrogance of that family. yes, lets all have a go at nel for doing his job. whilst the guy who actually killed someone has done no wrong whatsoever. urgh
Roux in his speech addressed it but was forced to just say, well, it might have happened by chance [the two pieces line up - too improbable and the state has no obligation to rule such a thing out], but conceded it would have been "splash" from OP's hands while running around.
snipped for space... if roux concedes about the blood trail at any point... that means the duvet was on the floor. so wasn't found on the bed. so that's a lie from oscar. and if the duvet was on the floor, the fans must have been where they were found (or at the very least not where oscar said they were). which means he wasn't doing the fandango when reeva went to the loo
The same way the trajectories of the bullets just happened to line up with RS as she fell until one struck her in the head and killed her you mean?
Or is it the same way OP happened to shout at the exact same moment RS stopped emptying her bladder and then slammed the door?
Perhaps it's the same way OP turned towards the amplifier as RS had JUST rounded the corner into bathroom (since she opened the window and had not yet gone into toilet cubicle), so he happened to miss her again by just moments?
I am sorry to announce to you that if you think there is any chance in the universe of the blood trail being attributed to something "just happening" in this, of all, cases - then you need to re-examine the concept of reasonable doubt and the role of probability in a criminal trial... :D:D
Forget that explanation now because it is not going to form part of the judgement. The fact remains police disturbance was a major part of the defence case and the policemen were never tasked about the major level of disturbance in the bedroom not a single question was put relating to the fans or the duvet. Defence case cannot continuously adapt itself during the course of a trial - it's against the rules.
The same incidentally applies to OP saying that the gun went off four times "accidentally".- having never mentioned in the past that there was any such accident or involuntariness involved. It's too significant of an omission on the part of defence (truth telling). It also contradicts Roux's perspective on the shooting earlier in the case since it was "two double taps" which cannot be the same thing as "4 rapid shots in a panic".
So it was something OP started making up on the stand.
That's the reason they finally have been forced into pleading "nonpathological INCAPACITY" (complete absence of blame)- something which has about as much chance of succeeding as of winning the lottery.
Of course, Roux had to put this argument, because the inference from OP saying "I do not take any blame for firing shots" if, in fact, he did make errors, is that he is not, in fact, mourning RS at all. If it was a "deeply loving relationship" and he made errors he can't turn around and take no blame now. It contradicts the meaning of the word "Love" IMO. I mean - just thinking about actual loving couples and how it would feel if you killed one and realized you acted badly at a certain point and this was the result.
Strikes me if his acquittal bid fails then the conclusion must be he is a heartless bastard. Even at CH that applies. Which then has the effect of making the original murder charge much more probable lol ;-)
The bullet holes are all about the same height and too low to ever have expected a headshot. The fatal shot could easily be chance. The other timings do not have to be as tight as you suggest. It makes sense that she would get out of bed at around the same moment. Her empty bladder proves she had just gone to the . Who ops in the middle of a row like that to pee! Are those timings reasonably possibly true? Yes they are.
absolutely unbelievable. the sheer arrogance of that family. yes, lets all have a go at nel for doing his job. whilst the guy who actually killed someone has done no wrong whatsoever. urgh
...and accepts no blame at all.
See above post: Accepting no blame is fine if you have none. But imagine killing someone you deeply loved, being in some way at fault, or worse, unlawful in the process, and saying you weren't at all. I still couldn't find a smidgen of blame anywhere in the defence headers.
He simply did nothing wrong at all.
Also at no point did Roux say "My client feels incredibly responsible for what he did."
"My client cannot forgive himself" "My client wishes he had done differently"
Only when it suited: My client feels depressed and as a result did not testify well.
It's what the Pistorii would have ordered anyway.
It's what they wanted to hear I guess. Deliver us a closing argument which validates everything he said on the stand and we will be happy.
We can then blame the nasty prosecutor and those nasty judge and assessors if someone would find him guilty for something.
Ugggh indeed.
Do they have a concept of how infrequently nonpathological incapacity succeeds.
In THAT of all situations (while still pleading self-defence at the same time).
With a self-defence that is, in fact, highly provocative involving swearing and other aggressive actions.
And in any event caused the gruesome death of his "loved one".
Are they literally oblivious to his lies?
Or actually completely aware of them but insulted that crime has consequences?
snipped for space... if roux concedes about the blood trail at any point... that means the duvet was on the floor. so wasn't found on the bed. so that's a lie from oscar. and if the duvet was on the floor, the fans must have been where they were found (or at the very least not where oscar said they were). which means he wasn't doing the fandango when reeva went to the loo
We know OP can't have inadvertently scooped up the duvet onto the floor, or else it would surely have bloody hand-prints on it.
absolutely unbelievable. the sheer arrogance of that family. yes, lets all have a go at nel for doing his job. whilst the guy who actually killed someone has done no wrong whatsoever. urgh
With the latest outrageous outburst by the Pistorius clan I have become convinced we are judging him and his family by the wrong yardstick.
It is evident that the normally accepted and understood human values of a civilised society such as responsibility, truthfulness, honesty, remorsefulness, integrity, etc are completely and utterly alien to them
It is as if a new tribe has been discovered not in the jungles of South America but in suburban South Africa.
I do believe we should be asking David Attenborough for his opinion
I know Roux's arguments were all bluster and waffle, but can any one tell me if the reason why he didn't call a witness to show that OP screamed like a woman made any sense at all?
it seemed to be that his response to the state was "well, you didn't call all your witnesses" and he also seemed to think that witnesses hearing women screaming confirmed that oscar screams like a woman
I wonder how he got to the balcony to shout "help, help, help" (as testified to by Dr Stipp) if the way was blocked by fan and duvet????
i think it was put that the light was on so he could negotiate his way round the bedroom. i stand to be corrected on that though, but i'm almost certain that as the bedroom was photographed with the light on, it was said that that's how he managed it. he couldn't have done it in the dark
it seemed to be that his response to the state was "well, you didn't call all your witnesses" and he also seemed to think that witnesses hearing women screaming confirmed that oscar screams like a woman
What nonsense ... it was one of his most important claims and they said they would prove it.
i think it was put that the light was on so he could negotiate his way round the bedroom. i stand to be corrected on that though, but i'm almost certain that as the bedroom was photographed with the light on, it was said that that's how he managed it. he couldn't have done it in the dark
Does the fan take on magical powers of becoming transparent and capable of being walked through, and the duvet become trip proof in the light?
I know Roux's arguments were all bluster and waffle, but can any one tell me if the reason why he didn't call a witness to show that OP screamed like a woman made any sense at all?
I think Roux was saying that as (on the defence timeline) the 'female' screams were heard after the (early) shots and around the same time as the closer neighbours heard a man crying out, there was no need to play a recording to the court (especially as this recording would be incredibly risky even if OP is telling the truth).
Comments
Don’t forget Masipa is herself disabled and probably took Roux’s remarks as a personal insult
On the other hand she may have though if you really want to see a ‘slow burn’ due to a disability and the release of pent up emotions just wait and watch what I can do on 11 September.
…cause I’m going to burn Pistorius’ ass so bad he won’t be able to sit down for 25 years
I think the Vermeulen in the OP trial is Johannes Vermuelen, a forensic analyst for the Prosecution. This is not Willie Vermeulen, advocate and nothing to do with the OP trial.
It does seem a pretty common surname in SA.
When cross examining Col von Rensburg he showed crime scene photos and began with official photos, he then showed dark poor focussed official photos to the witness without saying who or when they were taken. It was only after he'd moved on that Roux corrected his mistake was it a deliberate tactic?
Recall the "double tap" assertion, then despite the claim he was 'corrected' by his client he came back after an adjournment with the defence experts will show 'double tap'. It was not till 2 weeks later Roux publicly stated his client had refuted the 'double tap' claim.
The first witness was told it was 'fact' medical evidence would show Reeva never screamed as the first shot was to the head killed her. Nel had to object and read out the details of all 4 shots so the witness was fully informed.
There were numerous times Roux used these tactics, why if your client is telling the truth?
Just wanted to say that Roux's Mercedes and Fiat comment and Lois' shame comment just left me open-mouthed at the gall of these people, not to mention Roux bringing in domestic violence as an analogy in his case of all cases. It's great to read the comments underneath the Lois article - heartening to see that so many people get it. I hope Lois can somehow be charged with contempt of court. Surely it's not ok to directly address the prosecutor in an abusive way.
Thanks to TIMM, Sandy and Bat_Gun_Kick et al for great analysis of the legal complexities. :cool:
Looking at the Judge's face at the time, I think that Roux had just sealed OP's fate! This is yet another mistake like the one that led to OP going to Weskoppies.
I know Roux's arguments were all bluster and waffle, but can any one tell me if the reason why he didn't call a witness to show that OP screamed like a woman made any sense at all?
There were too many legal errors stated in order to try to confuse the judge
[1] The notion that you need 'reasonable doubt' about each piece of circumstantial evidence in its own right is not correct. It is 'reasonable doubt' across the aggregate of evidence.
[2] The notion that it would be impossible to convict OP of murder if he thought he was shooting at an intruder because it was in fact RS. Then presenting on the one hand an example of PPD (where it isn't murder) and on the other an example of misfiring and hitting a second person in your vicinity by mistake (not your intended target). Neither of these cases makes it "impossible" to convict OP of RS's murder because if he cannot reasonably have believed he was being threatened then he simply shot and it wasn't PPD at all but simply a murder of some kind. Without subjective threat being credible (reasonable), there is NO PPD and therefore there IS malice at the specific person behind the door.
But the defence writes 5 pages as though this is literally wrong law ... and has been wrong law for 70 years.
That can't be a mistake.
[3] They specifically state that disability is a personal attribute, so relevant for mitigation at sentencing, not charge level, but then go on to state that because of his disability, he might not have any negligence at all, which might make the difference between acquittal and culpable homicide. But that is a difference in charge level. The very thing which personal attributes are not supposed to be able to effect.
Either they don't know how to reason or they are not intent upon doing it correctly.
I noticed the difference between Uncle A and co over the two days. Thursday was the inane grins from him and his wife, dressed in a bright red dress as they sat through Nel's 'show'. The manchild yawned alot and probably played with
his toy cars on the bench.
Friday was very different. All heads up to front, wife dressed in black, a much more serious tone displayed all round for the 'money day'.
I can't help think they got their days mixed up...
Oh but I can say anything I like now and claim my words are the result of months of pent up mental frustration and anguish which has been slowly building up as this trial proceeded only to be released involuntary at the sound of my phone ringing
Yeah, I was going to ask about OP testifying that Botha said this and that. Unless Botha is on the stand, I can't see what OP saying he said carrying much weight. Is the testimony OP is quoting from Botha's appearance at the bail hearing? Botha hasn't seemed to cover himself in glory in this trial.
The same way the trajectories of the bullets just happened to line up with RS as she fell until one struck her in the head and killed her you mean?
Or is it the same way OP happened to shout at the exact same moment RS stopped emptying her bladder and then slammed the door?
Perhaps it's the same way OP turned towards the amplifier as RS had JUST rounded the corner into bathroom (since she opened the window and had not yet gone into toilet cubicle), so he happened to miss her again by just moments?
I am sorry to announce to you that if you think there is any chance in the universe of the blood trail being attributed to something "just happening" in this, of all, cases - then you need to re-examine the concept of reasonable doubt and the role of probability in a criminal trial...
Forget that explanation now because it is not going to form part of the judgement. The fact remains police disturbance was a major part of the defence case and the policemen were never tasked about the major level of disturbance in the bedroom not a single question was put relating to the fans or the duvet. Defence case cannot continuously adapt itself during the course of a trial - it's against the rules.
The same incidentally applies to OP saying that the gun went off four times "accidentally".- having never mentioned in the past that there was any such accident or involuntariness involved. It's too significant of an omission on the part of defence (truth telling). It also contradicts Roux's perspective on the shooting earlier in the case since it was "two double taps" which cannot be the same thing as "4 rapid shots in a panic".
So it was something OP started making up on the stand.
That's the reason they finally have been forced into pleading "nonpathological INCAPACITY" (complete absence of blame)- something which has about as much chance of succeeding as of winning the lottery.
Of course, Roux had to put this argument, because the inference from OP saying "I do not take any blame for firing shots" if, in fact, he did make errors, is that he is not, in fact, mourning RS at all. If it was a "deeply loving relationship" and he made errors he can't turn around and take no blame now. It contradicts the meaning of the word "Love" IMO. I mean - just thinking about actual loving couples and how it would feel if you killed one and realized you acted badly at a certain point and this was the result.
Strikes me if his acquittal bid fails then the conclusion must be he is a heartless bastard. Even at CH that applies. Which then has the effect of making the original murder charge much more probable lol ;-)
absolutely unbelievable. the sheer arrogance of that family. yes, lets all have a go at nel for doing his job. whilst the guy who actually killed someone has done no wrong whatsoever. urgh
very good
snipped for space... if roux concedes about the blood trail at any point... that means the duvet was on the floor. so wasn't found on the bed. so that's a lie from oscar. and if the duvet was on the floor, the fans must have been where they were found (or at the very least not where oscar said they were). which means he wasn't doing the fandango when reeva went to the loo
The bullet holes are all about the same height and too low to ever have expected a headshot. The fatal shot could easily be chance. The other timings do not have to be as tight as you suggest. It makes sense that she would get out of bed at around the same moment. Her empty bladder proves she had just gone to the . Who ops in the middle of a row like that to pee! Are those timings reasonably possibly true? Yes they are.
...and accepts no blame at all.
See above post: Accepting no blame is fine if you have none. But imagine killing someone you deeply loved, being in some way at fault, or worse, unlawful in the process, and saying you weren't at all. I still couldn't find a smidgen of blame anywhere in the defence headers.
He simply did nothing wrong at all.
Also at no point did Roux say "My client feels incredibly responsible for what he did."
"My client cannot forgive himself" "My client wishes he had done differently"
Only when it suited: My client feels depressed and as a result did not testify well.
It's what the Pistorii would have ordered anyway.
It's what they wanted to hear I guess. Deliver us a closing argument which validates everything he said on the stand and we will be happy.
We can then blame the nasty prosecutor and those nasty judge and assessors if someone would find him guilty for something.
Ugggh indeed.
Do they have a concept of how infrequently nonpathological incapacity succeeds.
In THAT of all situations (while still pleading self-defence at the same time).
With a self-defence that is, in fact, highly provocative involving swearing and other aggressive actions.
And in any event caused the gruesome death of his "loved one".
Are they literally oblivious to his lies?
Or actually completely aware of them but insulted that crime has consequences?
One wonders.
We know OP can't have inadvertently scooped up the duvet onto the floor, or else it would surely have bloody hand-prints on it.
With the latest outrageous outburst by the Pistorius clan I have become convinced we are judging him and his family by the wrong yardstick.
It is evident that the normally accepted and understood human values of a civilised society such as responsibility, truthfulness, honesty, remorsefulness, integrity, etc are completely and utterly alien to them
It is as if a new tribe has been discovered not in the jungles of South America but in suburban South Africa.
I do believe we should be asking David Attenborough for his opinion
it seemed to be that his response to the state was "well, you didn't call all your witnesses" and he also seemed to think that witnesses hearing women screaming confirmed that oscar screams like a woman
I wonder how he got to the balcony to shout "help, help, help" (as testified to by Dr Stipp) if the way was blocked by fan and duvet????
i think it was put that the light was on so he could negotiate his way round the bedroom. i stand to be corrected on that though, but i'm almost certain that as the bedroom was photographed with the light on, it was said that that's how he managed it. he couldn't have done it in the dark
Does the fan take on magical powers of becoming transparent and capable of being walked through, and the duvet become trip proof in the light?
I think Roux was saying that as (on the defence timeline) the 'female' screams were heard after the (early) shots and around the same time as the closer neighbours heard a man crying out, there was no need to play a recording to the court (especially as this recording would be incredibly risky even if OP is telling the truth).