They could have said that the first sounds were the bangs (bat). But they didn't. Because they don't think that they were.
That's not the point though, whether the first sounds were bats, or shots, or screams.
It is all the bits added together, not just one bit that can be quibbled over. (I edited my above post to add the credulity factor). It is the defense's job to quibble over bits. It's important not to confuse the defense's job with common sense.
I'm not suggesting that a criminal case is based on the preponderance of evidence, but it is based on certain evidence that can't be tossed out, and will tend to sway the case in one direction. No criminal finding is based on total proof.
That's not the point though, whether the first sounds were bats, or shots, or screams.
It is all the bits added together, not just one bit that can be quibbled over. (I edited my above post to add the credulity factor). It is the defense's job to quibble over bits. It's important not to confuse the defense's job with common sense.
I'm not suggesting that a criminal case is based on the preponderance of evidence, but it is based on certain evidence that can't be tossed out, and will tend to sway the case in one direction. No criminal finding is based on total proof.
Yes. The phone calls can't be tossed out. The phone calls from which the only inference to be drawn is that the shots had already occurred, and which therefore make the perception that a woman was screaming afterwards, likely to be mistaken.
I can do little better than to refer you to around 10 - 15 pages back where the more 'learned' contributions about boobs and smut lie. You'll be ever so impressed.
so this comment makes yours ok ? and you were on here reading ?^_^ At least those posts were amusing,light banter and early hours- ! not really worth mentioning really is it.....when 99% of posts are trial related, but there you go.
BIB - According to the law, the state does not have to provide a scenario at all. Of course Oscar's scenario fits every bit - he can make it fit, he's the only person who was there. He has tailored his "bits" to make them fit. Even if all his "stuff" fits a timeline, it does not make it true.
Yes, I thought that was the point I was making, that he had a crack defense team to help design his scenario. (I am not an OP fan).
The state doesn't have to provide a scenario, but in most successful cases I know, they do provide one.
You can see how the defense team, in providing a scenario, has many people arguing as if OP really did hear a strange noise in the bathroom (when that was never established, of course). That mental image was planted in the beginning and now it is hard to "unsee" it. I was posting early on when many were saying OP's account was reasonable. I was saying I bet the light was on.
Similarly, it is hard for some people to "see" what violence happens behind closed doors. Nice man, disciplined, hero, in an expensive suit, acts like what in private?
so this comment makes yours ok ? and you were on here reading them? ok. ^_^ At least those posts which were probably early hours- were amusing ! not really worth mentioning really is it.....when 99% of posts are trial related, but there you go.
My post was fine, thanks. It was one responding to your suggestion that Nel has missed all the stuff that you appear to have special inside knowledge of.
BTW, those posts were not amusing. There are funny posters on DS, with great timing skills. Those pages weren't an example of that I'm afraid. Chatter is for late night drunken nonsense.
Yes, I thought that was the point I was making, that he had a crack defense team to help design his scenario. (I am not an OP fan).
The state doesn't have to provide a scenario, but in most successful cases I know, they do provide one.
You can see how the defense team, in providing a scenario, has many people arguing as if OP really did hear a strange noise in the bathroom (when that was never established, of course). That mental image was planted in the beginning and now it is hard to "unsee" it. I was posting early on when many were saying OP's account was reasonable. I was saying I bet the light was on.
Yes, but are these cases all jury trials? I have had to keep reminding myself that the absence of a jury here makes a big difference to the way the case is presented. I have no doubt that if Gerrie Nel had been arguing his case in front of a jury he would have presented a very convincing scenario. But he doesn't need to do this before a learned and experienced judge with two able and alert assessors.
Yes, I thought that was the point I was making, that he had a crack defense team to help design his scenario. (I am not an OP fan).
The state doesn't have to provide a scenario, but in most successful cases I know, they do provide one.
You can see how the defense team, in providing a scenario, has many people arguing as if OP really did hear a strange noise in the bathroom (when that was never established, of course). That mental image was planted in the beginning and now it is hard to "unsee" it. I was posting early on when many were saying OP's account was reasonable. I was saying I bet the light was on.
Similarly, it is hard for some people to "see" what violence happens behind closed doors. Nice man, disciplined, hero, in an expensive suit, acts like what in private?
Oh gosh, total apologies on my part then Your post was maybe ambiguous or I took it the wrong way obviously. Nice to meet another Pro Prosecution member
Yes. The phone calls can't be tossed out. The phone calls from which the only inference to be drawn is that the shots had already occurred, and which therefore make the perception that a woman was screaming afterwards, likely to be mistaken.
The witness who heard arguing was not discredited. We went over this before, didn't we.
Some posters were trying to explain to me what a "credible" witness is.
All witnesses are credible (unless they are lying).
They are not expert witnesses. They report what they heard.
My post was fine, thanks. It was one responding to your suggestion that Nel has missed all the stuff that you appear to have special inside knowledge of.
BTW, those posts were not amusing. There are funny posters on DS, with great timing skills. Those pages weren't an example of that I'm afraid. Chatter is for late night drunken nonsense.
Yes, but are these cases all jury trials? I have had to keep reminding myself that the absence of a jury here makes a big difference to the way the case is presented. I have no doubt that if Gerrie Nel had been arguing his case in front of a jury he would have presented a very convincing scenario. But he doesn't need to do this before a learned and experienced judge with two able and alert assessors.
here here laVie! Agreed, learned panel will pour over all scenarios - even bat first. They could choose to focus on the "definite's" eg. Mrs Stipp saw light on. do they believe her? Or, blood on duvet and carpet etc., do they believe the crime photos? It's all going to be very interesting to read JM rulings and judgement.
Oh gosh, total apologies on my part then Your post was maybe ambiguous or I took it the wrong way obviously. Nice to meet another Pro Prosecution member
Yes, possibly it was ambiguous because the Prosecution has the much harder task when they are guessing at time of digestion, how the door was broken (all things that OP does know in his heart of hearts).
Yes. The phone calls can't be tossed out. The phone calls from which the only inference to be drawn is that the shots had already occurred, and which therefore make the perception that a woman was screaming afterwards, likely to be mistaken.
no no no
I wonder why you are avoiding the facts?
Shots occurred in the region of 3:02
Lights were on 3:02
Roux invented shots at 3:12
female and male screams were heard between 3:02 and in the region of 3:17
Johnson called to report screaming
Stipps called to report early shots and screaming
Mike called to report a shot
Second shots occurred in the region of 3:17 heard by Johnson and Stipps
The witness who heard arguing was not discredited. We went over this before, didn't we.
Some posters were trying to explain to me what a "credible" witness is.
All witnesses are credible (unless they are lying).
They are not expert witnesses. They report what they heard.
Arguing and a woman screaming.
Nothing to do with credibility. If the screaming was after they reported shots, they had to be mistaken about the source.
Don't blame me btw. I wasn't there and I didn't make it happen. I'm just summarising the facts.
:D:D you don't police the thread - Just don't read it then -, but you did ,which were what ....several posts ^_^
Contrary to what you think, people do look in to see what the latest discussion about the trial is. If they are then confronted by Jimmy Savile meets the St Winifred's Ladies Choir, thats down to you, I'm afraid.
I'm casting aspersions on nobody, and you know it. I do not know what the telephone discussion consisted of. I do know that in SA many people are rushed off in people's cars when badly injured. We all learned that some months ago. I can't see the point of a phone call to Netcare if it wasn't to seek help.
I can't see why a prosecutor wouldn't raise an issue if it existed.
Fine, you don't agree, but it doesn't make you 'right', or give any substance to your innuendo.
As we've learned, it's not unknown for injured people to be rushed to hospital in cars in SA, rather than wait for an ambulance. Presumably it takes more time for an ambulance to get to the estate, then explain their presence to security and be admitted, than for a car to leave the estate and race for the hospital? It strikes me that an estate-resident's car might leave the estate at 3.30am without security stopping them or even thinking there was anything wrong. An ambulance arriving for OP's address would generate maximum fuss, and calls to police, press, etc.
However, I think OP's call to Netcare was timed as something like 50 seconds? From experience watching an emergency call-centre in the UK, this seems unusually short. Before they issue advice, the handler ascertains a bunch of things about the injured person, which can take several minutes. In the UK, the ambulance is alerted and dispatched at the start of the process, so the questions aren't causing delay, but the handler is getting useful information and relaying it to the paramedics even as they're making their way to the scene. 50 seconds seems an impossibly short time to do phone-triage and decide the caller should get the patient to hospital himself. You've got to get through asking about breathing, bleeding, airways, consciousness, not to mention the identity of the caller and his contact details. And if OP was in the hysterical state he seemed to be in when he called security a couple of minutes later, it's even more surprising that he got the call done so quickly.
In the words of Roux "he never went onto the balcony" That the accused reference to "onto" was merely erroneous and due to his manner of speaking.
Dr Stipp was not there, he heard a noise, this noise came from a general direction, the patio doors were open, the bathroom window was open...and who knows the front door may have been open?
Why are we fixated with the balcony? Because OP told us thats what he did.
He very well might have shouted 'help help help' out of the front door when he was plugging his phone in.
I respectfully suggest that you take a wander back into the archives of the first thread on this topic: the one which began on the day of the shooting. You'll find that I was completely convinced that this could be nothing but a deliberate 'argument type' shooting, and that I remained of that opinion until the prosecution was nearing the end of its case.
Mind you, you and most of the most vociferous posters weren't even on DS back then.
I was there when you were accusing the Stipps of perjury when they were on the stand. I was pretty neutral at that point, but your 'so called neutral' stance was blown out of the water really early on. It was weird.
yes it tells you there is no proof what the first noises were. it tells you there is only proof that the 2nd noises were gunshots because peopple 177 metres away heard them.
1st noises could have been OP firing shots into the garden from his balcony. there are no witnesses except a liar. the noises were probably the cricket bat but state will not aver in its case something that cannot be proven.
State don't KNOW what happened. They can only put what they think they can prove. The inference certainly was that the early bangs were cricket strikes, but who knows, apart from OP that he didn't shoot Reeva in the hip THEN, and then run around smashing the place up before killing her.
We just dont' know.
The Pistorian obsession with the prosecution producing a ' totally correct timeline', is another red herring - they can't - they don't know.
What they do know is that the guns were bloody LOUD, that the screaming stopped AFTER the bangs, that the identified as MALE screams were after the bangs.
And that there was NO screaming before the first set of bangs heard.
it shows (to most rationally thinking ) that OP had NO sense of urgency ,that's what it showed the Court.
The ambulance thing is easy.
IF OP had 'told it as it was' there would have been an ambulance at his house MANY MINUTES before there was.
The two ambulances arrived when called - from Stipp, from Security, who were told to ring.
OP DIDN'T CALL AN AMBULANCE. What he said we don't know, he could have just 'cried a bit' or said 'it's awful, but I think I can get her to hospital'. We don't know.
But as you say, he did not CALL an ambulance. This is pretty damning really, but then the defense would say 'he was shocked, he was confused, it was dark, he was hoping is was a flesh wound', what bloody ever.
NO mother would have delayed. No person that was DECENT would have let that happen.
It happened. OP called NO ambulance, and no ambulance responded to whatever his call was.
Nothing to do with credibility. If the screaming was after they reported shots, they had to be mistaken about the source.
Don't blame me btw. I wasn't there and I didn't make it happen. I'm just summarising the facts.
Contrary to what you think, people do look in to see what the latest discussion about the trial is. If they are then confronted by Jimmy Savile meets the St Winifred's Ladies Choir, thats down to you, I'm afraid.
Not at all.
And there is no reason to think so. The people at the FRONT heard OP after the shots, the people towards the back heard NO screaming after the shots.
Because OP may well have gone downstairs and shouted out the front - he plugged his phone in downstairs after all and did his phoning from that phone.
What I don't get about the defence is why didn't they present the re-enactment video?? It must have cost a lot to get that made.
I really felt a bit sorry for Roux with someone like OP on the stand contradicting and lying all the time. This is one case he isn't going to win IMO.
Because they'd got his 'friend/physio' to testify that he 'could not run' that he could 'barely move' on his stumps, that it was all tooooo difficult for him to 'fleeee' and he HAD to fight because of that.
And also because showing the vid would show that he WAS NOT all crucified by the 'thought' of it all, and full of Gad and PTSD, he was fine.
He could move pretty well, and he could seriously keep the emotion together.
The evidence tape showed that whole part of the defense to be a crock of shit. basically. So it wasn't used.
I was there when you were accusing the Stipps of perjury when they were on the stand. I was pretty neutral at that point, but your 'so called neutral' stance was blown out of the water really early on. It was weird.
As I said, go back to the beginning of the first threads before flinging accusations about.
Yes, the Stipps (well Mrs Stipp mainly) concerned me. As did all of the prosecution witnesses. Which was a major blow to my thus held opinion that we were in for an indefensible case.
Its my belief that many others have felt the same but prefer to clutch to blind faith and entrenched viewpoints.
Shots occurred in the region of 3:02
Lights were on 3:02 Roux invented shots at 3:12
female and male screams were heard between 3:02 and in the region of 3:17
Johnson called to report screaming
Stipps called to report early shots and screaming
Mike called to report a shot
Second shots occurred in the region of 3:17 heard by Johnson and Stipps
exactly
AND Roux took the 3.12 from Johnson's 'notes' which he'd told the Court were rough notes and nothing more - it was classic Roux twisting facts and suggesting his inaccurate version was 'fact', which we know it wasn't and isn't.
As I said, go back to the beginning of the first threads before flinging accusations about.
Yes, the Stipps (well Mrs Stipp mainly) concerned me. As did all of the prosecution witnesses. Which was a major blow to my thus held opinion that we were in for an indefensible case.
Its my belief that many others have felt the same but prefer to clutch to blind faith and entrenched viewpoints.
And strangely none of the prosecution witnesses concerned you. And yet you promised to lay into them.
It's my belief that only a few on this thread, but a weirdo largish minority elsewhere, have a real and personal desire to believe OP.
exactly
AND Roux took the 3.12 from Johnson's 'notes' which he'd told the Court were rough notes and nothing more - it was classic Roux twisting facts and suggesting his inaccurate version was 'fact', which we know it wasn't and isn't.
Touche. i agree it sounds bizarre. But it 'fits', and theirs doesn't.
P.S. about state heads.
I definitely wasn't expecting such a terse headers.
I was disappointed by their lack of context and elaboration.
But then I started thinking. And realized what the man was up to! Kind of.
Most of the facts are common cause.
I think most of Nel's stuff there is just prompts to consider things a bit more deeply - you can't reflexively say yes / no. If after each prompt is researched and leads to agreement almost every time then they should feel able to convict with a clear conscience.
Because they have been forced to think.
How else to make ones peace with the outcome of such an ambiguous, tapestried kind of set of claims and evidences?
You don't want to get lost going down a rabbit hole to a false exoneration.
But a false conviction would be even worse.
So they need to be utterly sure.
I really don't think Nel can say any amounts of pages of material to make that so. The panel needs to reflect on what it all means.
The only thing he can do is prompt them to consider the trial in totality - how it evolved - OP's testimony - the tapestries of evidence and claims - and that's it really.
Ultimate question: Is he truthful or not?
It's like the North and South pole if you go the wrong way.
More extreme than normal, because he either shot in anger or error the person he cared about and then either lied in contempt of her family, or was vilified by all and sundry. It's so extreme. I do find myself thinking there should be "Three Oscars or more" on the table, really.
Anyway, it's more about thinking, than outright convincing. No judge would ever take a single sentence assertion and say "well yes that's right" or "no I really don't agree with that". She'll want to really give it some thought each time. Same for assessors. Each and every head needs to be examined from both sides.
It's for that reason then that some of the prosecution headers are actually questions.
Why did he shoot?
That's a profoundly important question. If they have to come up with some answer, then they are going to really need to be thinking A LOT.
It's that really: It's saying - here is my perspective (the SOUTH POLE) - if you think it all makes sense, then don't ever lose any sleep about the decision you made in putting this man in prison.
Because it's a tough call kind of case and nothing less than personal certainty will do it.
So I have to say I like that approach to a nuanced and highly subjective kind of trial - and in fact find it ethical if so - provoke thinking - remind them how certain they need to be to convict him. That's it really IMO.
Because they'd got his 'friend/physio' to testify that he 'could not run' that he could 'barely move' on his stumps, that it was all tooooo difficult for him to 'fleeee' and he HAD to fight because of that.
And also because showing the vid would show that he WAS NOT all crucified by the 'thought' of it all, and full of Gad and PTSD, he was fine.
He could move pretty well, and he could seriously keep the emotion together.
The evidence tape showed that whole part of the defense to be a crock of shit. basically. So it wasn't used.
along with the recording of OP screaming like a woman, because it showed he couldn't,so they didn't use it.
Comments
That's not the point though, whether the first sounds were bats, or shots, or screams.
It is all the bits added together, not just one bit that can be quibbled over. (I edited my above post to add the credulity factor). It is the defense's job to quibble over bits. It's important not to confuse the defense's job with common sense.
I'm not suggesting that a criminal case is based on the preponderance of evidence, but it is based on certain evidence that can't be tossed out, and will tend to sway the case in one direction. No criminal finding is based on total proof.
Yes. The phone calls can't be tossed out. The phone calls from which the only inference to be drawn is that the shots had already occurred, and which therefore make the perception that a woman was screaming afterwards, likely to be mistaken.
Yes, I thought that was the point I was making, that he had a crack defense team to help design his scenario. (I am not an OP fan).
The state doesn't have to provide a scenario, but in most successful cases I know, they do provide one.
You can see how the defense team, in providing a scenario, has many people arguing as if OP really did hear a strange noise in the bathroom (when that was never established, of course). That mental image was planted in the beginning and now it is hard to "unsee" it. I was posting early on when many were saying OP's account was reasonable. I was saying I bet the light was on.
Similarly, it is hard for some people to "see" what violence happens behind closed doors. Nice man, disciplined, hero, in an expensive suit, acts like what in private?
My post was fine, thanks. It was one responding to your suggestion that Nel has missed all the stuff that you appear to have special inside knowledge of.
BTW, those posts were not amusing. There are funny posters on DS, with great timing skills. Those pages weren't an example of that I'm afraid. Chatter is for late night drunken nonsense.
Yes, but are these cases all jury trials? I have had to keep reminding myself that the absence of a jury here makes a big difference to the way the case is presented. I have no doubt that if Gerrie Nel had been arguing his case in front of a jury he would have presented a very convincing scenario. But he doesn't need to do this before a learned and experienced judge with two able and alert assessors.
Oh gosh, total apologies on my part then
The witness who heard arguing was not discredited. We went over this before, didn't we.
Some posters were trying to explain to me what a "credible" witness is.
All witnesses are credible (unless they are lying).
They are not expert witnesses. They report what they heard.
Arguing and a woman screaming.
yes, exactly - and before and during the shots it was Reeva.
Some want it to have been OP screaming for no reason whatsoever ...........
here here laVie!
Yes, possibly it was ambiguous because the Prosecution has the much harder task when they are guessing at time of digestion, how the door was broken (all things that OP does know in his heart of hearts).
no no no
I wonder why you are avoiding the facts?
Shots occurred in the region of 3:02
Lights were on 3:02
Roux invented shots at 3:12
female and male screams were heard between 3:02 and in the region of 3:17
Johnson called to report screaming
Stipps called to report early shots and screaming
Mike called to report a shot
Second shots occurred in the region of 3:17 heard by Johnson and Stipps
Nothing to do with credibility. If the screaming was after they reported shots, they had to be mistaken about the source.
Don't blame me btw. I wasn't there and I didn't make it happen. I'm just summarising the facts.
Contrary to what you think, people do look in to see what the latest discussion about the trial is. If they are then confronted by Jimmy Savile meets the St Winifred's Ladies Choir, thats down to you, I'm afraid.
As we've learned, it's not unknown for injured people to be rushed to hospital in cars in SA, rather than wait for an ambulance. Presumably it takes more time for an ambulance to get to the estate, then explain their presence to security and be admitted, than for a car to leave the estate and race for the hospital? It strikes me that an estate-resident's car might leave the estate at 3.30am without security stopping them or even thinking there was anything wrong. An ambulance arriving for OP's address would generate maximum fuss, and calls to police, press, etc.
However, I think OP's call to Netcare was timed as something like 50 seconds? From experience watching an emergency call-centre in the UK, this seems unusually short. Before they issue advice, the handler ascertains a bunch of things about the injured person, which can take several minutes. In the UK, the ambulance is alerted and dispatched at the start of the process, so the questions aren't causing delay, but the handler is getting useful information and relaying it to the paramedics even as they're making their way to the scene. 50 seconds seems an impossibly short time to do phone-triage and decide the caller should get the patient to hospital himself. You've got to get through asking about breathing, bleeding, airways, consciousness, not to mention the identity of the caller and his contact details. And if OP was in the hysterical state he seemed to be in when he called security a couple of minutes later, it's even more surprising that he got the call done so quickly.
But Nel didn't test him on that, did he?
Why are we fixated with the balcony? Because OP told us thats what he did.
He very well might have shouted 'help help help' out of the front door when he was plugging his phone in.
Balcony is red herring.
No it won't. They don't have to believe the accused. Any one with sense will question anything a proven liar says.
I was there when you were accusing the Stipps of perjury when they were on the stand. I was pretty neutral at that point, but your 'so called neutral' stance was blown out of the water really early on. It was weird.
State don't KNOW what happened. They can only put what they think they can prove. The inference certainly was that the early bangs were cricket strikes, but who knows, apart from OP that he didn't shoot Reeva in the hip THEN, and then run around smashing the place up before killing her.
We just dont' know.
The Pistorian obsession with the prosecution producing a ' totally correct timeline', is another red herring - they can't - they don't know.
What they do know is that the guns were bloody LOUD, that the screaming stopped AFTER the bangs, that the identified as MALE screams were after the bangs.
And that there was NO screaming before the first set of bangs heard.
The ambulance thing is easy.
IF OP had 'told it as it was' there would have been an ambulance at his house MANY MINUTES before there was.
The two ambulances arrived when called - from Stipp, from Security, who were told to ring.
OP DIDN'T CALL AN AMBULANCE. What he said we don't know, he could have just 'cried a bit' or said 'it's awful, but I think I can get her to hospital'. We don't know.
But as you say, he did not CALL an ambulance. This is pretty damning really, but then the defense would say 'he was shocked, he was confused, it was dark, he was hoping is was a flesh wound', what bloody ever.
NO mother would have delayed. No person that was DECENT would have let that happen.
It happened. OP called NO ambulance, and no ambulance responded to whatever his call was.
I really felt a bit sorry for Roux with someone like OP on the stand contradicting and lying all the time. This is one case he isn't going to win IMO.
Not at all.
And there is no reason to think so. The people at the FRONT heard OP after the shots, the people towards the back heard NO screaming after the shots.
Because OP may well have gone downstairs and shouted out the front - he plugged his phone in downstairs after all and did his phoning from that phone.
Because they'd got his 'friend/physio' to testify that he 'could not run' that he could 'barely move' on his stumps, that it was all tooooo difficult for him to 'fleeee' and he HAD to fight because of that.
And also because showing the vid would show that he WAS NOT all crucified by the 'thought' of it all, and full of Gad and PTSD, he was fine.
He could move pretty well, and he could seriously keep the emotion together.
The evidence tape showed that whole part of the defense to be a crock of shit. basically. So it wasn't used.
As I said, go back to the beginning of the first threads before flinging accusations about.
Yes, the Stipps (well Mrs Stipp mainly) concerned me. As did all of the prosecution witnesses. Which was a major blow to my thus held opinion that we were in for an indefensible case.
Its my belief that many others have felt the same but prefer to clutch to blind faith and entrenched viewpoints.
AND Roux took the 3.12 from Johnson's 'notes' which he'd told the Court were rough notes and nothing more - it was classic Roux twisting facts and suggesting his inaccurate version was 'fact', which we know it wasn't and isn't.
And strangely none of the prosecution witnesses concerned you. And yet you promised to lay into them.
It's my belief that only a few on this thread, but a weirdo largish minority elsewhere, have a real and personal desire to believe OP.
Most look at ALL the evidence critically.
Agree - his timeline is built on SAND.
sorry sandy.
P.S. about state heads.
I definitely wasn't expecting such a terse headers.
I was disappointed by their lack of context and elaboration.
But then I started thinking. And realized what the man was up to! Kind of.
Most of the facts are common cause.
I think most of Nel's stuff there is just prompts to consider things a bit more deeply - you can't reflexively say yes / no. If after each prompt is researched and leads to agreement almost every time then they should feel able to convict with a clear conscience.
Because they have been forced to think.
How else to make ones peace with the outcome of such an ambiguous, tapestried kind of set of claims and evidences?
You don't want to get lost going down a rabbit hole to a false exoneration.
But a false conviction would be even worse.
So they need to be utterly sure.
I really don't think Nel can say any amounts of pages of material to make that so. The panel needs to reflect on what it all means.
The only thing he can do is prompt them to consider the trial in totality - how it evolved - OP's testimony - the tapestries of evidence and claims - and that's it really.
Ultimate question: Is he truthful or not?
It's like the North and South pole if you go the wrong way.
More extreme than normal, because he either shot in anger or error the person he cared about and then either lied in contempt of her family, or was vilified by all and sundry. It's so extreme. I do find myself thinking there should be "Three Oscars or more" on the table, really.
Anyway, it's more about thinking, than outright convincing. No judge would ever take a single sentence assertion and say "well yes that's right" or "no I really don't agree with that". She'll want to really give it some thought each time. Same for assessors. Each and every head needs to be examined from both sides.
It's for that reason then that some of the prosecution headers are actually questions.
Why did he shoot?
That's a profoundly important question. If they have to come up with some answer, then they are going to really need to be thinking A LOT.
It's that really: It's saying - here is my perspective (the SOUTH POLE) - if you think it all makes sense, then don't ever lose any sleep about the decision you made in putting this man in prison.
Because it's a tough call kind of case and nothing less than personal certainty will do it.
So I have to say I like that approach to a nuanced and highly subjective kind of trial - and in fact find it ethical if so - provoke thinking - remind them how certain they need to be to convict him. That's it really IMO.
along with the recording of OP screaming like a woman, because it showed he couldn't,so they didn't use it.