Wow seven posts in and already you're about to start conflict.
It's a gift ;-) (I've been simmering on the sidelines for a long time though - think of me like the Netherlands substitute goalkeeper)
Mind you. It doesn't mean that I can set my chuffin' account up without my giving my name. I will be leaving now before I get into trouble.
I may come back wearing my cloak of invisibility or I may not :cool:
I tell you what has made me laugh this morning though. There has been so much talk about disabilty in this forum that the targetted Ads on this forum have now started coming up with walk in shower and bath adverts.
This is a nice ideal, but the reality of human beings - and here I have good reason to know - is that most of us have a lot less courage than we'd like to imagine. People usually think they'd behave bravely in the interests of others, but the sad reality is that perceptions are plastic and cowardice can be easily reframed as sensible caution.
I applaud those witnesses who were not paid, who were not trying to 'help a friend out', who could easily have slid away from responsibility, and who still testified.
Yes I applaud them too for having the courage to go in a witness box and be questioned, bullied, humiliated, by both sides.
Roux's argument [Re. TV] is not persuasive coming as it does and at this late stage in the proceedings.
I am sure Nel can drum up easily another 5 witnesses that for emotional reasons of being too grief-stricken did not want to present evidence in court.
He only has to threaten to call June Steenkamp to talk about the speeding incident plus phone calls with Reeva saying that things were "not good" about 1-2 weeks before the incident, and in particular, that they were "fighting the whole time".
Does the defense really want more in camera witnesses?
How about Mr. Myers to talk about Reeva using the word "caged" and his perception that OP was "moody and ungracious" in the weeks before it happened, and was "bombarding" Reeva with calls after they rowed the first time?
In addition, the judge was open to alternative testifying conditions on case by case basis. This is how Professor Saayman testified. Why could Roux not say "We have a specific witness, their name is X, and they would come here to talk about Y, but they are too nervous because of the cameras to do it. Would the court consider to here their evidence under the same conditions as Saayman?"
Hard to see who such witnesses could be but in any event mysterious "unnamed" ones is not very impressive. If the evidence matters, the defense would argue it on a case by case basis, to try to get the TV's restricted to hear something - if it was so important that is. Just saying "we tried amongst ourselves" but not then petitioning the judge about a specific information is not impressive. The judge should probably demand to know what type of evidence the defense was intending to submit and what it would have proven. And then consider the matter.
As for the remarks about OP being "chilled" by testifying, I thought he was very emotional testifying, he looked a lot less emotional in his video didn't he(!!!). Perhaps Masipa should have a chat to Professor Pretorius to establish whether he was any different in private at Weskoppies? She already knows he told Professor Derman different things at different times in private...
Nah this is totally expected but just another excuse. That's all defense have now. Excuses. To stop their lovely client from taking responsibility. I'm sure M'Lady can read between the lines well enough.
OP clearly does not scream anything like a woman. And we've all heard it now...definitely male.
But that's not the only issue with the screaming. It's the fact that he was apparently screaming at all that's so bloody ridiculous.
If he's walking down the passage to confront a threat, he wants that threat to leave and run away. He said as much. He didn't want them to stay and fight him, he wanted them gone.
In which case, he would have wanted to give them a reason to flee. He would have bellowed in his most manly, threatening way that he had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it. He would have shouted that the police were on their way....and so on.
The thought of him edging down the passage, squealing like one of the Bee Gees is too ridiculous for words.
That's simply not how adults behave in threatening situations. And his disability would only highlight his need to show the "intruders" that a very dangerous man with a gun was headed in their direction.
He is a liar. And I can't wait to see him sent down for a very, very long time. Reeva deserves no less.
BIB :D so true
When put like that , it does make the Prosecution's case very powerful - The testimonies from witnesses who heard a woman screaming coming from OP's house is the most damning evidence against OP ,proving his story is a lie. (particularly Mrs Berger's- it was very powerful).
- it is the Crux of the case, and the Defence were not able to explain that away or demonstrate it was anyone other than Reeva screaming - great news for the State's Case and getting justice for Reeva and her family.
Morning Imogen I missed this morning's session, was 10min late and it was over already I feel this is just a straw grasp death rattle at the end by the DT. Everyone knew it was going to be a televised trial. If DT really thought it was crucial - they may have asked Judge Masipa to make an exception, surely? (Just saying) Like you rightly say, it WAS the same for both sides. Perhaps these witnesses were not brought for other reasons (like they were in fact not very strong witnesses for the DT), it's all fine and well to say at this stage it was due to fear of televised audio. All this just my opinion, I may have it backwards.
Would the DT be able to give assurances that all of those who refused to testify would testify in any retrial? If they could not give such assurances then they have no case.
I would guess that there would be a number of prosecution witnesses who would also testify that didn't if it was a closed court. Including some who did not come forward first time round who could give utterly damning testimony.
M'lady will laugh the DT's excuse out of court on this basis unless they have any other strong justification for a retrial
It's a gift ;-) (I've been simmering on the sidelines for a long time though - think of me like the Netherlands substitute goalkeeper)
Mind you. It doesn't mean that I can set my chuffin' account up without my giving my name. I will be leaving now before I get into trouble.
I may come back wearing my cloak of invisibility or I may not :cool:
I tell you what has made me laugh this morning though. There has been so much talk about disabilty in this forum that the targetted Ads on this forum have now started coming up with walk in shower and bath adverts.
Waits for the twenty posts telling you to ignore smacka.;-)
BIB :D so true
When put like that , it does make the Prosecution's case very powerful - The testimonies from witnesses who heard a woman screaming coming from OP's house is the most damning evidence against OP ,proving his story is a lie. (particularly Mrs Berger's- it was very powerful).
- it is the Crux of the case, and the Defence were not able to explain that away or demonstrate it was anyone other than Reeva screaming - great news for the State's Case and getting justice for Reeva and her family.
Yep true - intruder shooting followed by screaming like a Bee Gee is just too strange.
I believe shooting Reeva and then screaming like a Bee Gee because of the custodial implications is a possibility however??
It's a gift ;-) (I've been simmering on the sidelines for a long time though - think of me like the Netherlands substitute goalkeeper)
Mind you. It doesn't mean that I can set my chuffin' account up without my giving my name. I will be leaving now before I get into trouble.
I may come back wearing my cloak of invisibility or I may not :cool:
I tell you what has made me laugh this morning though. There has been so much talk about disabilty in this forum that the targetted Ads on this forum have now started coming up with walk in shower and bath adverts.
:D
Liking your location !
have you seen mine ? :cool:
Just watched the video of this morning's session. While Roux mentioned that potential defence witnesses wouldn't testify because were "media shy" he completed this statement by saying that the DT realised that asking the court to use their powers would have made no difference. How can there be an appeal on this basis? It seemed obvious that while this may have been the excuse they used it was apparent it wasn't the only reason.
Roux's argument [Re. TV] is not persuasive coming as it does and at this late stage in the proceedings.
I am sure Nel can drum up easily another 5 witnesses that for emotional reasons of being too grief-stricken did not want to present evidence in court.
He only has to threaten to call June Steenkamp to talk about the speeding incident plus phone calls with Reeva saying that things were "not good" about 1-2 weeks before the incident, and in particular, that they were "fighting the whole time".
Does the defense really want more in camera witnesses?
How about Mr. Myers to talk about Reeva using the word "caged" and his perception that OP was "moody and ungracious" in the weeks before it happened, and was "bombarding" Reeva with calls after they rowed the first time?
In addition, the judge was open to alternative testifying conditions on case by case basis. This is how Professor Saayman testified. Why could Roux not say "We have a specific witness, their name is X, and they would come here to talk about Y, but they are too nervous because of the cameras to do it. Would the court consider to here their evidence under the same conditions as Saayman?"
Hard to see who such witnesses could be but in any event mysterious "unnamed" ones is not very impressive. Did he ask Masipa to consider changing the testifying rules to here the evidence???
As for the remarks about OP being "chilled" by testifying, I thought he was very emotional testifying, he looked a lot less emotional in his video didn't he(!!!). Perhaps Masipa should have a chat to Professor Pretorius to establish whether he was any different in private at Weskoppies? She already knows he told Professor Derman different things at different times in private...
Nah this is totally expected but just another excuse. That's all defense have now. Excuses. To stop their lovely client from taking responsibility. I'm sure M'Lady can read between the lines well enough.
Hi moniker, aren't you assuming the witnesses would have been friends of Oscar?
Could they not have been other neighbours for instance? Net care? Alarm engineers?
Just watched the video of this morning's session. While Roux mentioned that potential defence witnesses wouldn't testify because were "media shy" he completed this statement by saying that the DT realised that asking the court to use their powers would have made no difference. How can there be an appeal on this basis? It seemed obvious that while this may have been the excuse they used it was apparent it wasn't the only reason.
Ha! OK. well it sounds like they're trying to explain to OP why some of his witnesses don't want to appear but in as diplomatic way as possible. But at the same time tell the judge that isn't the real reason, so not to try taking this "serious matter" seriously because it would get nowhere (as it isn't the real reason for them not testifying).
It would be embarrassing if Masipa insisted on full details of the missing witnesses and evidence and wanted to hear petitions on the purpose of each witness in camera and have long debates between herself, Roux and Nel, only for Roux to have to admit at the end of it that the TV camera wasn't the real reason LOL :D:D
Yep true - intruder shooting followed by screaming like a Bee Gee is just too strange.
I believe shooting Reeva and then screaming like a Bee Gee because of the custodial implications is a possibility however??
Nah, Moniker.
I believe he was crying and yelling a bit after the shooting, but not sounding like a woman.
Both the Mike's identified a male voice.
Dr Stipp only heard a male voice after the second bangs.
Mr VDM identified the crying after the bangs as a male, specifically Oscar
That other neighbour (forget the name) only heard a male at that time.
Mr Baba heard crying down the phone, knew it was Oscar
It was only Mrs VDM who thought it was female.
What's clear is that everyone who heard voices before the 3.15 bangs heard a male & a female. Afterwards, they virtually all only heard a male.
Just watched the video of this morning's session. While Roux mentioned that potential defence witnesses wouldn't testify because were "media shy" he completed this statement by saying that the DT realised that asking the court to use their powers would have made no difference. How can there be an appeal on this basis? It seemed obvious that while this may have been the excuse they used it was apparent it wasn't the only reason.
Think Roux B********ing here. All witnesses can be compelled to come to court, the only exceptions are children and the mentally ill. If they were essential to the defence case then Roux would have done it. That he didn't then the court will assume that they did not have anything that would change the outcome.
There are many reasons why witnesses don't want to testify. This is rubbish.
Sorry to be that poster but would someone mind giving a very quick review of this morning.
Intrigued to here the Steenkamps could be put in the witness box? Did I read that right? Gawd I bet Reeva's mother is tearing at the bit to give a bit of pain to Oscar and remind people he's not the victim.
Ha! OK. well it sounds like they're trying to explain to OP why some of his witnesses don't want to appear but in as diplomatic way as possible. But at the same time tell the judge that isn't the real reason, so not to try taking this "serious matter" seriously because it would get nowhere (as it isn't the real reason for them not testifying).
It would be embarrassing if Masipa insisted on full details of the missing witnesses and evidence and wanted to hear petitions on the purpose of each witness in camera and have long debates between herself, Roux and Nel, only for Roux to have to admit at the end of it that the TV camera wasn't the real reason LOL :D:D
I think he would have to provide evidence - it sounded as though he hasn't got any evidence of this. Just found this article from a while back:
Just watched the footage of this morning's ten minutes, and was struck by OP's eyes flickering between Roux and the judge. I think it's the first time I've seen him pay any attention to the judge.
Hi moniker, aren't you assuming the witnesses would have been friends of Oscar?
Could they not have been other neighbours for instance? Net care? Alarm engineers?
Nope. I considered experts too. The judge has the power to order certain evidence be heard in private or without any audio or video recordings. She can do that even if Nel does not agree [corrected!] - but i doubt Nel is going to fear a private session with an alarm engineer or a Netcare operative at this stage.
Clearly the evidence types would be specified before the judge and these avenues would be explored if it was a serious request.
That is why Roux says "we realized asking the court to consider using its powers would make little difference". Without asking, that is, they realised.
Because TV cameras can be gotten rid of just like that - Masipa only needs to click her fingers!
It's not a real thing Smacka - nothing so vague would ever be acceptable in court, you must know that, particularly if you then say "we realized asking the court to use its powers would make no difference" ... it's either deliberate tactic to leave the way open for appeal, by not using up every argument now, or a diplomatic way of explaining to OP why some of his witnesses refused to testify [perhaps because they have no answer to certain arguments, or because they can no longer see a way in which he might be innocent & don't want to be associated therefore].
Hi moniker, aren't you assuming the witnesses would have been friends of Oscar?
Could they not have been other neighbours for instance? Net care? Alarm engineers?
Evidence helpful to the defence from Netcare & alarm engineers would have been crucial. Anything directly supporting OP would be. Not to approach the court and ask for anonymity in terms of audio and visual blackout (as in the case of Saayman) would have been an appalling failure of duty on the part of Roux. He's far too good to make a mistake like that.
To simply slip in, "Oh well, some of our witnesses didn't want to testify" at the end of their case is, as Ruth said, nothing more than sabre-rattling. Can't actually have been that important if this is the first mention.
Comments
It's a gift ;-) (I've been simmering on the sidelines for a long time though - think of me like the Netherlands substitute goalkeeper)
Mind you. It doesn't mean that I can set my chuffin' account up without my giving my name. I will be leaving now before I get into trouble.
I may come back wearing my cloak of invisibility or I may not :cool:
I tell you what has made me laugh this morning though. There has been so much talk about disabilty in this forum that the targetted Ads on this forum have now started coming up with walk in shower and bath adverts.
Yes I applaud them too for having the courage to go in a witness box and be questioned, bullied, humiliated, by both sides.
I am sure Nel can drum up easily another 5 witnesses that for emotional reasons of being too grief-stricken did not want to present evidence in court.
He only has to threaten to call June Steenkamp to talk about the speeding incident plus phone calls with Reeva saying that things were "not good" about 1-2 weeks before the incident, and in particular, that they were "fighting the whole time".
Does the defense really want more in camera witnesses?
How about Mr. Myers to talk about Reeva using the word "caged" and his perception that OP was "moody and ungracious" in the weeks before it happened, and was "bombarding" Reeva with calls after they rowed the first time?
In addition, the judge was open to alternative testifying conditions on case by case basis. This is how Professor Saayman testified. Why could Roux not say "We have a specific witness, their name is X, and they would come here to talk about Y, but they are too nervous because of the cameras to do it. Would the court consider to here their evidence under the same conditions as Saayman?"
Hard to see who such witnesses could be but in any event mysterious "unnamed" ones is not very impressive. If the evidence matters, the defense would argue it on a case by case basis, to try to get the TV's restricted to hear something - if it was so important that is. Just saying "we tried amongst ourselves" but not then petitioning the judge about a specific information is not impressive. The judge should probably demand to know what type of evidence the defense was intending to submit and what it would have proven. And then consider the matter.
As for the remarks about OP being "chilled" by testifying, I thought he was very emotional testifying, he looked a lot less emotional in his video didn't he(!!!). Perhaps Masipa should have a chat to Professor Pretorius to establish whether he was any different in private at Weskoppies? She already knows he told Professor Derman different things at different times in private...
Nah this is totally expected but just another excuse. That's all defense have now. Excuses. To stop their lovely client from taking responsibility. I'm sure M'Lady can read between the lines well enough.
When put like that , it does make the Prosecution's case very powerful - The testimonies from witnesses who heard a woman screaming coming from OP's house is the most damning evidence against OP ,proving his story is a lie. (particularly Mrs Berger's- it was very powerful).
- it is the Crux of the case, and the Defence were not able to explain that away or demonstrate it was anyone other than Reeva screaming - great news for the State's Case and getting justice for Reeva and her family.
I would guess that there would be a number of prosecution witnesses who would also testify that didn't if it was a closed court. Including some who did not come forward first time round who could give utterly damning testimony.
M'lady will laugh the DT's excuse out of court on this basis unless they have any other strong justification for a retrial
Waits for the twenty posts telling you to ignore smacka.;-)
Yep true - intruder shooting followed by screaming like a Bee Gee is just too strange.
I believe shooting Reeva and then screaming like a Bee Gee because of the custodial implications is a possibility however??
Liking your location !
have you seen mine ? :cool:
Not at all. You are a vital and excellent contributor to the thread.
Hi moniker, aren't you assuming the witnesses would have been friends of Oscar?
Could they not have been other neighbours for instance? Net care? Alarm engineers?
Ha! OK. well it sounds like they're trying to explain to OP why some of his witnesses don't want to appear but in as diplomatic way as possible. But at the same time tell the judge that isn't the real reason, so not to try taking this "serious matter" seriously because it would get nowhere (as it isn't the real reason for them not testifying).
It would be embarrassing if Masipa insisted on full details of the missing witnesses and evidence and wanted to hear petitions on the purpose of each witness in camera and have long debates between herself, Roux and Nel, only for Roux to have to admit at the end of it that the TV camera wasn't the real reason LOL
Nah, Moniker.
I believe he was crying and yelling a bit after the shooting, but not sounding like a woman.
Both the Mike's identified a male voice.
Dr Stipp only heard a male voice after the second bangs.
Mr VDM identified the crying after the bangs as a male, specifically Oscar
That other neighbour (forget the name) only heard a male at that time.
Mr Baba heard crying down the phone, knew it was Oscar
It was only Mrs VDM who thought it was female.
What's clear is that everyone who heard voices before the 3.15 bangs heard a male & a female. Afterwards, they virtually all only heard a male.
Slam and dunk. IMO ;-)
That's very nice of you to say so benji.;-)
I've got no doubt about it sandy.;-)
Think Roux B********ing here. All witnesses can be compelled to come to court, the only exceptions are children and the mentally ill. If they were essential to the defence case then Roux would have done it. That he didn't then the court will assume that they did not have anything that would change the outcome.
There are many reasons why witnesses don't want to testify. This is rubbish.
Sorry to be that poster but would someone mind giving a very quick review of this morning.
Intrigued to here the Steenkamps could be put in the witness box? Did I read that right? Gawd I bet Reeva's mother is tearing at the bit to give a bit of pain to Oscar and remind people he's not the victim.
...exactly, and don't forget "vulnerable" !
I think he would have to provide evidence - it sounded as though he hasn't got any evidence of this. Just found this article from a while back:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/03/07/pistorius-s-defence-stirs-fear
Don't think they were of importance. If they had been, then as I said they would have been compelled to attend.
Nope. I considered experts too. The judge has the power to order certain evidence be heard in private or without any audio or video recordings. She can do that even if Nel does not agree [corrected!] - but i doubt Nel is going to fear a private session with an alarm engineer or a Netcare operative at this stage.
Clearly the evidence types would be specified before the judge and these avenues would be explored if it was a serious request.
That is why Roux says "we realized asking the court to consider using its powers would make little difference". Without asking, that is, they realised.
Because TV cameras can be gotten rid of just like that - Masipa only needs to click her fingers!
It's not a real thing Smacka - nothing so vague would ever be acceptable in court, you must know that, particularly if you then say "we realized asking the court to use its powers would make no difference" ... it's either deliberate tactic to leave the way open for appeal, by not using up every argument now, or a diplomatic way of explaining to OP why some of his witnesses refused to testify [perhaps because they have no answer to certain arguments, or because they can no longer see a way in which he might be innocent & don't want to be associated therefore].
And, most intimidating of all, have their every word analysed relentlessly by us lot here on the forum!! :cool:
Evidence helpful to the defence from Netcare & alarm engineers would have been crucial. Anything directly supporting OP would be. Not to approach the court and ask for anonymity in terms of audio and visual blackout (as in the case of Saayman) would have been an appalling failure of duty on the part of Roux. He's far too good to make a mistake like that.
To simply slip in, "Oh well, some of our witnesses didn't want to testify" at the end of their case is, as Ruth said, nothing more than sabre-rattling. Can't actually have been that important if this is the first mention.