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...
Everyone makes mistakes??!!??!!
I forgot to get some milk in yesterday so I guess I can empathise >:(
These supporters of his scare me .. and you're right they're mostly women.
500 pages of heads to discuss and what do I find today? 20 odd pages and 8 hours of biscuits and tits, this thread is now just a continuation of the trench, neither wonder most of the regular members can't be arsed anymore.
I'll give moniker his dues, he does his best to keep the thread on topic.
I think 90% of what we heard at the trial was smoke and mirrors and will not come into play when the judge rules, nor will forensic evidence, nor will witness statements of arguing, screaming, rather it will come down to what was going on in Pistorius' mind when he fired the shots knowing someone was behind the door.
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).
hmmm... sounds like straw clutching to me. if he's got the recording, he should play it. why would you allow the prosecution to have something to hold over you?
1. The bullet holes are all about the same height and too low to ever have expected a headshot.
2. The fatal shot could "easily" be chance.
3. 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 loo.
4. Who ops in the middle of a row like that to pee! Are those timings reasonably possibly true? Yes they are.
1. His version isn't that he expected anything. He wasn't aiming remember. It was involuntary. So forget all about chest heights. If alternatively, he was aiming, I agree, it wasn't at the intruder.
Find me a criminal that cannot say that under any circumstances. "It was involuntary".
Case law clearly indicates that if you consider actions beforehand you courts will be at great pains before accepting - or even contemplating - that the final action is involuntary! The judge isn't going to give him a preference there.
That's what I mean about this case not being one in which a person gets to plead a possibility like 2 blood trails becoming one by chance.
It's just not going to happen due to "reasonable doubt".
2. I just query the word in quotations.
So it just all happened by chance. Chance she was hit, chance his aim changed when she fell onto a noisy piece of furniture (the location of which he knows), and chance he didn't empty his magazine but stopped on the 4th. The chances are cumulatively more improbable. It is no longer at the level where you can just say "easily". Define it. 1 in 10. 1 in a 1000. What do you think? Or is it just a subjective observation giving preference, as always, to OP!
You're suggesting that if he was in fact aiming at the intruder his aim was terrible. I agree.
3. The timings are very tight. If she doesn't finish peeing exactly the moment before the door slam, then she simply failed to use paper or flush for no apparent reason. In a panic she might not have. So the timing has to be bang on when the bladder emptied.
She also started this no later than opening the window, and OP himself covered about 8m of ground maximum (half of it running) during the time - and heard nothing.
The timing for the window bang is also very precise. Otherwise she was simply standing in the bathroom doing what exactly? She needed the loo, but got into bathroom, and simply stood around while he continued to close blinds etc - with the lights off.
The empty bladder is indicative of going to the toilet within 30 minutes of the incident
4. Who goes to loo in a row: Someone that needs to pee??? I'm not suggesting for a moment that the entire row was spent contemplating being murdered. But presumably after this peeing, something happened which was the final straw between them and the situation then completely exploded. I don't believe this was premeditated on his part whatsoever barring a frantic rush.
- Each timing in itself can be reasonably possibly true, but the collection of things as a whole might not be. That's the point about evidence being considered as a whole. You don't apply the same very strict test to everything separately (unless you believed Roux about that, sorry, was a lie lol ).
- That's why this isn't a case where the blood trail will be questioned as the chance for it to be made by two separate trails is so low. The chance that this would happen and then appear to be the very thing to catch OP out as well. As opposed to plain old answer of a lying defendant. [The real hole in the explanation is why the police were never asked about fans or duvet during the exams. Disturbance was always an important theme in the defence case and cannot keep on adapting it. If OP had discussed it with his counsel, he would have been on the ball about it and noticed the problems in the photo both in his evidence in chief and when Nel asked him. It seems almost pointless to deny he got all this stuff wrong, either somehow naively or because he was lying!]
- The state doesn't have to exclude every possibility.
- That one isn't reasonable to think about and amounts to alleging a "conspiracy of innocence".
- You can't have a "conspiracy of innocence" to win a trial, things have to be somehow more natural than that, I think most people get the sense of that ... even if (respectfully) you don't see it in OP's case! ;-)
4. Who goes to loo in a row: Someone that needs to pee??? I'm not suggesting for a moment that the entire row was spent contemplating being murdered. But presumably after this peeing, something happened which was the final straw between them and the situation then completely exploded. I don't believe this was premeditated on his part whatsoever barring a frantic rush.
it could have been that her going to the loo sparked the final argument. perhaps she was in the cubicle and he carried on having a go at her and she just said "right, well i'm not coming out until you calm down"
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
Exactly, a dangerous precedent will be set here if this crapola is accepted...
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
They ought to be ashamed the whole lot of them. They disgust me. If Reeva had killed OP and used same defence (whatever it is ... he's blamed it on everything but the boogie so far) then they would want blood.
It beggars belief ... all that June Steenkamp has had to see and hear in that court room .. and she hasn't once said this to OP or Roux.
The Pistorius's are arrogant, unfeeling and deluded.
500 pages of heads to discuss and what do I find today? 20 odd pages and 8 hours of biscuits and tits, this thread is now just a continuation of the trench, neither wonder most of the regular members can't be arsed anymore.
I'll give moniker his dues, he does his best to keep the thread on topic.
not quite as bad as the trench... i didn't mention the s word
but yes, ok. point taken. i feel suitably ashamed of myself (ish )
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!
which Vermeulen are you referring to Sandy? Batman? He's not a lawyer, I think the one in that case is not the same person.
500 pages of heads to discuss and what do I find today? 20 odd pages and 8 hours of biscuits and tits, this thread is now just a continuation of the trench, neither wonder most of the regular members can't be arsed anymore.
I'll give moniker his dues, he does his best to keep the thread on topic.
As you say.
Maybe some people will launch a new internet forum dedicated solely to the hatred of OP, his family, his legal team, and probably the judge and assessors eventually, as per those sites which exist to spew rabid bile about a missing girl's parents. This thread is little different from those sites now, and its populated by a number of those who have learned their trade on them.
1. His version isn't that he expected anything. He wasn't aiming remember. It was involuntary. So forget all about chest heights. If alternatively, he was aiming, I agree, it wasn't at the intruder.
Find me a criminal that cannot say that under any circumstances. "It was involuntary".
Case law clearly indicates that if you consider actions beforehand you courts will be at great pains before accepting - or even contemplating - that the final action is involuntary! The judge isn't going to give him a preference there.
That's what I mean about this case not being one in which a person gets to plead a possibility like 2 blood trails becoming one by chance.
It's just not going to happen due to "reasonable doubt".
2. I just query the word in quotations.
So it just all happened by chance. Chance she was hit, chance his aim changed when she fell onto a noisy piece of furniture (the location of which he knows), and chance he didn't empty his magazine but stopped on the 4th. The chances are cumulatively more improbable. It is no longer at the level where you can just say "easily". Define it. 1 in 10. 1 in a 1000. What do you think? Or is it just a subjective observation giving preference, as always, to OP!
You're suggesting that if he was in fact aiming at the intruder his aim was terrible. I agree.
3. The timings are very tight. If she doesn't finish peeing exactly the moment before the door slam, then she simply failed to use paper or flush for no apparent reason. In a panic she might not have. So the timing has to be bang on when the bladder emptied.
She also started this no later than opening the window, and OP himself covered about 8m of ground maximum (half of it running) during the time - and heard nothing.
The timing for the window bang is also very precise. Otherwise she was simply standing in the bathroom doing what exactly? She needed the loo, but got into bathroom, and simply stood around while he continued to close blinds etc - with the lights off.
The empty bladder is indicative of going to the toilet within 30 minutes of the incident
4. Who goes to loo in a row: Someone that needs to pee??? I'm not suggesting for a moment that the entire row was spent contemplating being murdered. But presumably after this peeing, something happened which was the final straw between them and the situation then completely exploded. I don't believe this was premeditated on his part whatsoever barring a frantic rush.
- Each timing in itself can be reasonably possibly true, but the collection of things as a whole might not be. That's the point about evidence being considered as a whole. You don't apply the same very strict test to everything separately (unless you believed Roux about that, sorry, was a lie lol ).
- That's why this isn't a case where the blood trail will be questioned as the chance for it to be made by two separate trails is so low. The chance that this would happen and then appear to be the very thing to catch OP out as well. As opposed to plain old answer of a lying defendant. [The real hole in the explanation is why the police were never asked about fans or duvet during the exams. Disturbance was always an important theme in the defence case and cannot keep on adapting it. If OP had discussed it with his counsel, he would have been on the ball about it and noticed the problems in the photo both in his evidence in chief and when Nel asked him. It seems almost pointless to deny he got all this stuff wrong, either somehow naively or because he was lying!]
- The state doesn't have to exclude every possibility.
- That one isn't reasonable to think about and amounts to alleging a "conspiracy of innocence".
- You can't have a "conspiracy of innocence" to win a trial, things have to be somehow more natural than that, I think most people get the sense of that ... even if (respectfully) you don't see it in OP's case! ;-)
She could have gone to loo and come out before opening the window. If the closed toilet muffles screams a flush ould be inaudible.
hmmm... sounds like straw clutching to me. if he's got the recording, he should play it. why would you allow the prosecution to have something to hold over you?
If he played the recording, the problem is that everyone is listening out for a man, so they are more likely to hear a man. So many variables that cannot be replicated make it a last-resort risk. (eg State of mind/emotional state of OP and each individual earwitness; cultural/social expectation to attribute female gender to screams; level of alertness/awakeness of earwitness etc) If it was played to an earwitness and they said 'no-that's not what I heard'- it would be difficult for the defence and yet their statement could be both true and false. If the same conditions cannot be replicated then it can't be the same scream. Of course, if the scream was not OP then it couldn't be the same scream. But also, the last time they heard that scream was over a year ago, out of the blue, in the middle of the night. How likely is it, given the widespread coverage of the details of the trial and the way memory can distort and reshape, and the fact the conditions can't be replicated, that the noise would sound the same (or similar enough)?
But if your timeline places the screams after the shooting and at the same time as closer neighbours hearing a man crying out in a high voice (and with another neighbour mistaking a man crying for a woman) then that risk doesn't need to be taken. Maybe?
She could have gone to loo and come out before opening the window. If the closed toilet muffles screams a flush ould be inaudible.
I doubt that very much. Because she would open the door while the flush mechanism was still happening. And it is one of the loudest sounds in a house, typically, at night - everything quiet. In fact the cistern and pipes are right next to the wall of the bedroom.
I can't think of any house I've ever stayed in where you cannot hear a toilet being flushed, often on a different floor of the house as well.
Toilet muffles screams???? Who said that. Not Lin. He said they could be slightly audible 180m away lol
Not to mention RS is then once again standing around doing nothing in the bathroom after opening the window and until she suddenly decides to lock herself in there again. "Reeva phone the police" - she's standing aimlessly at this point, perhaps gazing at the Stipps house, who knows - still in the dark - and then she doesn't go "Huh? Why?? What's going on?" she just immediately runs back into the cubicle and slams and locks (somehow silently) the door lol
Actually all before he finishes the four words in his shout!
I personally think she was expecting him to shout out her and already about to lock herself in - its' the only way she can have finished that fast enough to coincide to that shout. She must have sensed that he was coming to the bathroom I think. Sort of premonition of needing to make herself safer..
BiB: It does if you aren't on your stumps anymore, yes [or by the way, never were]. Why would he still be on his stumps at that point???
As for the fan being "walked through" would it be inconceivable to turn sideways and edge past it?
OP could certainly have said: "Well, I know it must be possible, because I did it!!! I edged round it."
There is in fact space to walk around it isn't there.
I assume that is what the policemen did.
OP's version was "running onto balcony" implying haste, panic...led to the question.
It was OP that then put it at the foot of the bed causing a chain reaction of other novel recollections.
Funny. Theres no assertion in the state's HOA that he wasn't on his stumps. Nor that he 'edged past it'. If the state isn't seeking to persuade the court of something, I aren't sure why you're seeking to persuade yourself of it. Weird.
If he played the recording, the problem is that everyone is listening out for a man, so they are more likely to hear a man. So many variables that cannot be replicated make it a last-resort risk. (eg State of mind/emotional state of OP and each individual earwitness; cultural/social expectation to attribute female gender to screams; level of alertness/awakeness of earwitness etc) If it was played to an earwitness and they said 'no-that's not what I heard'- it would be difficult for the defence and yet their statement could be both true and false. If the same conditions cannot be replicated then it can't be the same scream. Of course, if the scream was not OP then it couldn't be the same scream. But also, the last time they heard that scream was over a year ago, out of the blue, in the middle of the night. How likely is it, given the widespread coverage of the details of the trial and the way memory can distort and reshape, and the fact the conditions can't be replicated, that the noise would sound the same (or similar enough)?
But if your timeline places the screams after the shooting and at the same time as closer neighbours hearing a man crying out in a high voice (and with another neighbour mistaking a man crying for a woman) then that risk doesn't need to be taken. Maybe?
yeah, i could buy that if roux hadn't specifically said they had a recording that they would play. he knew what his witnesses were going to say, so if you follow his logic, there was no need for him to make that claim at all. if he'd just said "well we will argue that was oscar" then that's fine. but he went too far with it really and then didn't back up his claims
yeah, i could buy that if roux hadn't specifically said they had a recording that they would play. he knew what his witnesses were going to say, so if you follow his logic, there was no need for him to make that claim at all. if he'd just said "well we will argue that was oscar" then that's fine. but he went too far with it really and then didn't back up his claims
Well, he said it before the breakthrough moment when Nel had to nail his colours to the 3:17 mast, which was the moment everyone, especially the DT, knew that the state's case was a dead duck.
Funny. Theres no assertion in the state's HOA that he wasn't on his stumps. Nor that he 'edged past it'. If the state isn't seeking to persuade the court of something, I aren't sure why you're seeking to persuade yourself of it. Weird.
So you think it's impossible he edged past it on his prosthetics? That literally can't have happened so it must have been where he said, on the duvet, and the blood spatter just happened - when - two trails lined up??
There is a complete absence of questions about the biggest of all the crime scene disturbances if so to any of the police. Despite the lengthy discussions between OP and his team (they made hundreds of notes), there was never a note to the effect that all that stuff was incorrect so therefore neither OP nor his counsel commented upon it until OP was asked questions under cross-exam.
A single question unsettled him so he seems to have moved them as far as possible on the fly (no doubt anticipating more awkward questions about the lack of time for missing RS). And so the chain started...
P.S. The actual "arguments" consists in the entire trial. Also scant indications of being on prosthetics - outside Mangena saying it's "possible" - I agree - and I consider it to be one of the oversights of the state case! I don't have to "persuade" myself since there is no "struggle" in coming to the conclusion...
Funny. Theres no assertion in the state's HOA that he wasn't on his stumps. Nor that he 'edged past it'. If the state isn't seeking to persuade the court of something, I aren't sure why you're seeking to persuade yourself of it. Weird.
Accidents are caused by coincidences that only become significant later. That tends to be forgotten when you assume guilt
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
This was total bluster by Roux blaming the State.
There were 107 witnesses originally on the State witness list, including Hilton Botha.
After the prosecution case, if Roux wanted any of the witnesses who were not called by the State to be called he was quite at liberty to do so.
He did not do so.
Therefore it is disingenuous and a sign of desperation to try and blame the state when the remedy was in his hands
Comments
well it would be easier to negotiate it, wouldn't it? as i said, i don't know for sure that was the reason put forward
yes, it was pretty ridiculous
What Just like Reeva was? as testified by OP.
I forgot to get some milk in yesterday so I guess I can empathise >:(
These supporters of his scare me .. and you're right they're mostly women.
I'll give moniker his dues, he does his best to keep the thread on topic.
hmmm... sounds like straw clutching to me. if he's got the recording, he should play it. why would you allow the prosecution to have something to hold over you?
1. His version isn't that he expected anything. He wasn't aiming remember. It was involuntary. So forget all about chest heights. If alternatively, he was aiming, I agree, it wasn't at the intruder.
Find me a criminal that cannot say that under any circumstances. "It was involuntary".
Case law clearly indicates that if you consider actions beforehand you courts will be at great pains before accepting - or even contemplating - that the final action is involuntary! The judge isn't going to give him a preference there.
That's what I mean about this case not being one in which a person gets to plead a possibility like 2 blood trails becoming one by chance.
It's just not going to happen due to "reasonable doubt".
2. I just query the word in quotations.
So it just all happened by chance. Chance she was hit, chance his aim changed when she fell onto a noisy piece of furniture (the location of which he knows), and chance he didn't empty his magazine but stopped on the 4th. The chances are cumulatively more improbable. It is no longer at the level where you can just say "easily". Define it. 1 in 10. 1 in a 1000. What do you think? Or is it just a subjective observation giving preference, as always, to OP!
You're suggesting that if he was in fact aiming at the intruder his aim was terrible. I agree.
3. The timings are very tight. If she doesn't finish peeing exactly the moment before the door slam, then she simply failed to use paper or flush for no apparent reason. In a panic she might not have. So the timing has to be bang on when the bladder emptied.
She also started this no later than opening the window, and OP himself covered about 8m of ground maximum (half of it running) during the time - and heard nothing.
The timing for the window bang is also very precise. Otherwise she was simply standing in the bathroom doing what exactly? She needed the loo, but got into bathroom, and simply stood around while he continued to close blinds etc - with the lights off.
The empty bladder is indicative of going to the toilet within 30 minutes of the incident
4. Who goes to loo in a row: Someone that needs to pee??? I'm not suggesting for a moment that the entire row was spent contemplating being murdered. But presumably after this peeing, something happened which was the final straw between them and the situation then completely exploded. I don't believe this was premeditated on his part whatsoever barring a frantic rush.
- Each timing in itself can be reasonably possibly true, but the collection of things as a whole might not be. That's the point about evidence being considered as a whole. You don't apply the same very strict test to everything separately (unless you believed Roux about that, sorry, was a lie lol
- That's why this isn't a case where the blood trail will be questioned as the chance for it to be made by two separate trails is so low. The chance that this would happen and then appear to be the very thing to catch OP out as well. As opposed to plain old answer of a lying defendant. [The real hole in the explanation is why the police were never asked about fans or duvet during the exams. Disturbance was always an important theme in the defence case and cannot keep on adapting it. If OP had discussed it with his counsel, he would have been on the ball about it and noticed the problems in the photo both in his evidence in chief and when Nel asked him. It seems almost pointless to deny he got all this stuff wrong, either somehow naively or because he was lying!]
- The state doesn't have to exclude every possibility.
- That one isn't reasonable to think about and amounts to alleging a "conspiracy of innocence".
- You can't have a "conspiracy of innocence" to win a trial, things have to be somehow more natural than that, I think most people get the sense of that ... even if (respectfully) you don't see it in OP's case! ;-)
it could have been that her going to the loo sparked the final argument. perhaps she was in the cubicle and he carried on having a go at her and she just said "right, well i'm not coming out until you calm down"
Exactly, a dangerous precedent will be set here if this crapola is accepted...
It beggars belief ... all that June Steenkamp has had to see and hear in that court room .. and she hasn't once said this to OP or Roux.
The Pistorius's are arrogant, unfeeling and deluded.
not quite as bad as the trench... i didn't mention the s word
but yes, ok. point taken. i feel suitably ashamed of myself
which Vermeulen are you referring to Sandy? Batman? He's not a lawyer, I think the one in that case is not the same person.
No, nobody seems to know of a reason.
As you say.
Maybe some people will launch a new internet forum dedicated solely to the hatred of OP, his family, his legal team, and probably the judge and assessors eventually, as per those sites which exist to spew rabid bile about a missing girl's parents. This thread is little different from those sites now, and its populated by a number of those who have learned their trade on them.
She could have gone to loo and come out before opening the window. If the closed toilet muffles screams a flush ould be inaudible.
If he played the recording, the problem is that everyone is listening out for a man, so they are more likely to hear a man. So many variables that cannot be replicated make it a last-resort risk. (eg State of mind/emotional state of OP and each individual earwitness; cultural/social expectation to attribute female gender to screams; level of alertness/awakeness of earwitness etc) If it was played to an earwitness and they said 'no-that's not what I heard'- it would be difficult for the defence and yet their statement could be both true and false. If the same conditions cannot be replicated then it can't be the same scream. Of course, if the scream was not OP then it couldn't be the same scream. But also, the last time they heard that scream was over a year ago, out of the blue, in the middle of the night. How likely is it, given the widespread coverage of the details of the trial and the way memory can distort and reshape, and the fact the conditions can't be replicated, that the noise would sound the same (or similar enough)?
But if your timeline places the screams after the shooting and at the same time as closer neighbours hearing a man crying out in a high voice (and with another neighbour mistaking a man crying for a woman) then that risk doesn't need to be taken. Maybe?
BiB: It does if you aren't on your stumps anymore, yes [or by the way, never were]. Why would he still be on his stumps at that point???
As for the fan being "walked through" would it be inconceivable to turn sideways and edge past it?
OP could certainly have said: "Well, I know it must be possible, because I did it!!! I edged round it."
There is in fact space to walk around it isn't there.
I assume that is what the policemen did.
OP's version was "running onto balcony" implying haste, panic...led to the question.
It was OP that then put it at the foot of the bed causing a chain reaction of other novel recollections.
I doubt that very much. Because she would open the door while the flush mechanism was still happening. And it is one of the loudest sounds in a house, typically, at night - everything quiet. In fact the cistern and pipes are right next to the wall of the bedroom.
I can't think of any house I've ever stayed in where you cannot hear a toilet being flushed, often on a different floor of the house as well.
Toilet muffles screams???? Who said that. Not Lin. He said they could be slightly audible 180m away lol
Not to mention RS is then once again standing around doing nothing in the bathroom after opening the window and until she suddenly decides to lock herself in there again. "Reeva phone the police" - she's standing aimlessly at this point, perhaps gazing at the Stipps house, who knows - still in the dark - and then she doesn't go "Huh? Why?? What's going on?" she just immediately runs back into the cubicle and slams and locks (somehow silently) the door lol
Actually all before he finishes the four words in his shout!
I personally think she was expecting him to shout out her and already about to lock herself in - its' the only way she can have finished that fast enough to coincide to that shout. She must have sensed that he was coming to the bathroom I think. Sort of premonition of needing to make herself safer..
Funny. Theres no assertion in the state's HOA that he wasn't on his stumps. Nor that he 'edged past it'. If the state isn't seeking to persuade the court of something, I aren't sure why you're seeking to persuade yourself of it. Weird.
yeah, i could buy that if roux hadn't specifically said they had a recording that they would play. he knew what his witnesses were going to say, so if you follow his logic, there was no need for him to make that claim at all. if he'd just said "well we will argue that was oscar" then that's fine. but he went too far with it really and then didn't back up his claims
Well, he said it before the breakthrough moment when Nel had to nail his colours to the 3:17 mast, which was the moment everyone, especially the DT, knew that the state's case was a dead duck.
So you think it's impossible he edged past it on his prosthetics? That literally can't have happened so it must have been where he said, on the duvet, and the blood spatter just happened - when - two trails lined up??
There is a complete absence of questions about the biggest of all the crime scene disturbances if so to any of the police. Despite the lengthy discussions between OP and his team (they made hundreds of notes), there was never a note to the effect that all that stuff was incorrect so therefore neither OP nor his counsel commented upon it until OP was asked questions under cross-exam.
A single question unsettled him so he seems to have moved them as far as possible on the fly (no doubt anticipating more awkward questions about the lack of time for missing RS). And so the chain started...
P.S. The actual "arguments" consists in the entire trial. Also scant indications of being on prosthetics - outside Mangena saying it's "possible" - I agree - and I consider it to be one of the oversights of the state case! I don't have to "persuade" myself since there is no "struggle" in coming to the conclusion...
Accidents are caused by coincidences that only become significant later. That tends to be forgotten when you assume guilt
This was total bluster by Roux blaming the State.
There were 107 witnesses originally on the State witness list, including Hilton Botha.
After the prosecution case, if Roux wanted any of the witnesses who were not called by the State to be called he was quite at liberty to do so.
He did not do so.
Therefore it is disingenuous and a sign of desperation to try and blame the state when the remedy was in his hands
Including Frank too.