Hmmmm ... this could be. Though the watch would be covered in blood wouldn't it? I know the box had blood on it but I expect they checked the watches .. unless it's the stolen one
Okay... that is a wrinkle in my story. I had not realized that no blood was on any of the watches.
Okay... let's try this: As OP is about to place the watch w/blood on it into the watch box, he realizes that would be a mistake. Sooo he takes the bloody watch (hey, I sounded British there) and takes it into bathroom, washes his hands/wrists and then cleans the watch up before then placing it in the box.
I'm not with you on this one, why shouldn't he be wearing a watch, and if he was and took it off wouldn't he have to wash any blood off it, therefore washing his hands at the same time.?
We must have been posting at the same time... hopefully my last post (prior to this one) will help clear up one of your concerns.
Now my idea on why he shouldn't be wearing a watch, is that he claimed he had been sleeping not long before hearing the noise coming from the bathroom.
I'm under the impression that people remove their watches before going to bed... but, listen, I've certainly been wrong before.
Okay... that is a wrinkle in my story. I had not realized that no blood was on any of the watches.
Okay... let's try this: As OP is about to place the watch w/blood on it into the watch box, he realizes that would be a mistake. Sooo he takes the bloody watch (hey, I sounded British there) and takes it into bathroom, washes his hands/wrists and then cleans the watch up before then placing it in the box.
Or maybe he wasn't wearing a watch at all and had no need to do anything?
We must have been posting at the same time... hopefully my last post (prior to this one) will help clear up one of your concerns.
Now my idea on why he shouldn't be wearing a watch, is that he claimed he had been sleeping not long before hearing the noise coming from the bathroom.
I'm under the impression that people remove their watches before going to bed... but, listen, I've certainly been wrong before.
He had a bath before bed so he would have taken his watch off.
I have been and still am having a bit of a work crisis so have not be able to follow this thread as much as I would like so forgive me if this has been covered . Has OP given any explanation for why he did not have a reciprocal gift/ card?
It's a bank holiday in the UK here tomorrow so will be watching between work but suspect psychologist defence expert may take this line - http://t.co/RD9yW13wyH .
Remember Roux only needs to show reasonable doubt on the most serious charge. There is little doubt he will be convicted on the lesser charges.
Hello again all - work has been interfering with my trial obsession, so I've missed most of the posting. I did catch 'Nel's Belles' though and definitely have my badge! I'm also a Curlie's Girlie, for sure. Hope he makes an appearance tomorrow.
Does anyone know if it will be live on Sky news, or do we have to stream it online?
Apparently the ballistics expert is very well respected - Woolmerons or something. I doubt he'll be anything like as easy to squash as dear Roger was. Plus, he's been in court for ages, so knows precisely what to expect from Nel.
Can't wait to see what he says about the magazine rack.
Hoping Stander will be up first, though. Really want to hear what OP said on the phone.
I think Mr Ballistic has been taking the lead in the forensic evidence.
Here's my theory why the Magazine Rack was moved....the Defence argue Reeva was standing by the door when hit by two bullets and the head one as she fell back.
Could it be Mr Ballistics will have the bullets travelling at a different angle more to the right, thus the shots were pointed at the noise (Magazine Rack in it's new position) ? Thus allowing for the holes being close the handle of the door?
But it leaves the problem of how Reeva hit the rack and bounced 2ft towards the toilet bowl,
I have been and still am having a bit of a work crisis so have not be able to follow this thread as much as I would like so forgive me if this has been covered . Has OP given any explanation for why he did not have a reciprocal gift/ card?
It's a bank holiday in the UK here tomorrow so will be watching between work but suspect psychologist defence expert may take this line - http://t.co/RD9yW13wyH .
Remember Roux only needs to show reasonable doubt on the most serious charge. There is little doubt he will be convicted on the lesser charges.
this
didnt seem much into her did he? why was he with the poor girl?
I stated that it was a theory of mine... in response to another poster's question as to why OP went upstairs twice.
Come on peeps, cut me some slack here.
That's okay ... all theories welcome :)There was definitely something weird about the watches .. blood on the watch box for a start and then Aimee wanting to take one. Why was that a priority at a time like that?
That's okay ... all theories welcome :)There was definitely something weird about the watches .. blood on the watch box for a start and then Aimee wanting to take one. Why was that a priority at a time like that?
I have been and still am having a bit of a work crisis so have not be able to follow this thread as much as I would like so forgive me if this has been covered . Has OP given any explanation for why he did not have a reciprocal gift/ card?
It's a bank holiday in the UK here tomorrow so will be watching between work but suspect psychologist defence expert may take this line - http://t.co/RD9yW13wyH .
Remember Roux only needs to show reasonable doubt on the most serious charge. There is little doubt he will be convicted on the lesser charges.
Some talk about buying some charms for a bracelet which of course we only have his word for. No card .. he wouldn't be getting that the next day as who does that? (other than people who couldn't really give a fig) he was waking up with her ... bit embarrassing not to give a card when you receive one. After all .. he was the more besotted. He hadn't had the opportunity to tell her though that he loved her (how many seconds does it take?) and seemingly hadn't thought that a Valentine's card might be a nice way of expressing it. The flowers were presumably still at the florists.
Okay... that is a wrinkle in my story. I had not realized that no blood was on any of the watches.
Okay... let's try this: As OP is about to place the watch w/blood on it into the watch box, he realizes that would be a mistake. Sooo he takes the bloody watch (hey, I sounded British there) and takes it into bathroom, washes his hands/wrists and then cleans the watch up before then placing it in the box.
Some talk about buying some charms for a bracelet which of course we only have his word for. No card .. he wouldn't be getting that the next day as who does that? (other than people who couldn't really give a fig) he was waking up with her ... bit embarrassing not to give a card when you receive one. After all .. he was the more besotted. He hadn't had the opportunity to tell her though that he loved her (how many seconds does it take?) and seemingly hadn't thought that a Valentine's card might be a nice way of expressing it. The flowers were presumably still at the florists.
This is interesting. I wondered if Reeva had picked up his clothes when she ran to the bathroom and put them on .. it's possible they were still there after his shower/bath. One pair of her jeans had gone out of the window and if she wanted to leave she couldn't do so naked.
I still think it's weird that she was found wearing his clothes .. especially as he had said she was wearing pyjamas earlier.
Okay... that is a wrinkle in my story. I had not realized that no blood was on any of the watches.
Okay... let's try this: As OP is about to place the watch w/blood on it into the watch box, he realizes that would be a mistake. Sooo he takes the bloody watch (hey, I sounded British there) and takes it into bathroom, washes his hands/wrists and then cleans the watch up before then placing it in the box.
There WAS blood on the watches, not just the box !
Yes and I'll take a gamble that you always lock the loo door ... even in the middle of the night and put your slippers by the side of the bed you're not sleeping in.
Hello again all - work has been interfering with my trial obsession, so I've missed most of the posting. I did catch 'Nel's Belles' though and definitely have my badge! I'm also a Curlie's Girlie, for sure. Hope he makes an appearance tomorrow.
Does anyone know if it will be live on Sky news, or do we have to stream it online?
I caught a Sky trailer about it today so I'm pretty sure it'll be live on Sky.
I'll make the time to admire any 'legal beefcake' on the screen during tomorrow's televised trial, including the post-coverage de-brief. I consider myself to be (despite being rather plump and not-so-easy on the eye) both a Nel's Belle and a Curlie's Girle: a Nerlie Burlie perhaps?
Comments
Okay... that is a wrinkle in my story. I had not realized that no blood was on any of the watches.
Okay... let's try this: As OP is about to place the watch w/blood on it into the watch box, he realizes that would be a mistake. Sooo he takes the bloody watch (hey, I sounded British there) and takes it into bathroom, washes his hands/wrists and then cleans the watch up before then placing it in the box.
Wonder if an amygdala hijack has owt to do with that missing Malaysian plane
We must have been posting at the same time... hopefully my last post (prior to this one) will help clear up one of your concerns.
Now my idea on why he shouldn't be wearing a watch, is that he claimed he had been sleeping not long before hearing the noise coming from the bathroom.
I'm under the impression that people remove their watches before going to bed... but, listen, I've certainly been wrong before.
Or maybe he wasn't wearing a watch at all and had no need to do anything?
Could be !!!
He had a bath before bed so he would have taken his watch off.
I stated that it was a theory of mine... in response to another poster's question as to why OP went upstairs twice.
Come on peeps, cut me some slack here.
It's a bank holiday in the UK here tomorrow so will be watching between work but suspect psychologist defence expert may take this line - http://t.co/RD9yW13wyH .
Remember Roux only needs to show reasonable doubt on the most serious charge. There is little doubt he will be convicted on the lesser charges.
Does anyone know if it will be live on Sky news, or do we have to stream it online?
I think Mr Ballistic has been taking the lead in the forensic evidence.
Here's my theory why the Magazine Rack was moved....the Defence argue Reeva was standing by the door when hit by two bullets and the head one as she fell back.
Could it be Mr Ballistics will have the bullets travelling at a different angle more to the right, thus the shots were pointed at the noise (Magazine Rack in it's new position) ? Thus allowing for the holes being close the handle of the door?
But it leaves the problem of how Reeva hit the rack and bounced 2ft towards the toilet bowl,
this
didnt seem much into her did he? why was he with the poor girl?
Or was it a shower, he said both in his evidence.
Hinky to the point of stinky.
I'm just a lurker here but I had to post and say that I've definitely stayed with Roux. I'm not trying to steal Nel from his Belles...
Don't get it? I always wear a watch to bed
Many thanks! Totally agree btw.
I still think it's weird that she was found wearing his clothes .. especially as he had said she was wearing pyjamas earlier.
There WAS blood on the watches, not just the box !
I caught a Sky trailer about it today so I'm pretty sure it'll be live on Sky.
I'll make the time to admire any 'legal beefcake' on the screen during tomorrow's televised trial, including the post-coverage de-brief. I consider myself to be (despite being rather plump and not-so-easy on the eye) both a Nel's Belle and a Curlie's Girle: a Nerlie Burlie perhaps?
Goodo. That's one less !!!