Maybe he did not need to bash door down? Maybe the door was bashed in with bat beforehand and it was a matter of reaching in with his hand to unlock it...if the door was locked in the first place.
I remember seeing the toilet door key with a tag on it...is this the usual way toilet door keys are kept? are where the keys stored elsewhere?
I still believe it was the bat first then the gun/bullets.
What a cheek of Roux to say Stipp basically lied because he wanted to help the state! That's borderline slanderous! He has no right to suggest that he lied or that there was any motive behind what he said. >:(
Because none of his witness's did that >:(
That is like a husband accusing a wife of having affairs when it is them having the affairs >:(
I hope the judge is good at analysing things, that's all I can say!
Because there's a lot of BS being expressed here.
For example, Roux is now saying we "know" it was 5 minutes. Huh????
Know what that's based upon. It's based on Johnson's notes.
The very same notes that Roux has been keen to criticize as having changed.
Yeah that's bloody reliable isn't it.
exactly. surely you can't say "this evidence is rubbish and we want it dismissed" and then 5 minutes later turn around and say "but we'll use this little bit here to help us"
that being said, nel tore into wolmarans and dixon and then said "they also said the magazine rack wasn't where oscar said it was" so... i guess it works both ways
What a cheek of Roux to say Stipp basically lied because he wanted to help the state! That's borderline slanderous! He has no right to suggest that he lied or that there was any motive behind what he said. >:(
What a cheek of Roux to say Stipp basically lied because he wanted to help the state! That's borderline slanderous! He has no right to suggest that he lied or that there was any motive behind what he said. >:(
Yeah he's basically saying - "our witnesses are perfect, their witnesses are liars" - nit if we want to borrow certain unsubstantiated details from their witnesses anyway (such as Johnson's rough notes on the timings of the screams) - we will.
Pick and mix.
Nel's is similar though, in that he is ignoring Mike and his wife. He's not saying they are untruthful but providing no rational explanation for them phoning at 3:16.
exactly. surely you can't say "this evidence is rubbish and we want it dismissed" and then 5 minutes later turn around and say "but we'll use this little bit here to help us"
that being said, nel tore into wolmarans and dixon and then said "they also said the magazine rack wasn't where oscar said it was" so... i guess it works both ways
Yes! I noticed that contradiction on Dixon and Wolmarans too.
Honestly Siobhan, I think we should become lawyers!
These are the top legal minds so I think we would have a chance.
Dixon, I don't feel had to be rejected as the court would have anyway
Wolmarans why not just argue with his reconstruction rather than say "he's rubbish - but by the way we like his answer about the magazine rack".
Yeah he's basically saying - "our witnesses are perfect, their witnesses are liars" - nit if we want to borrow certain unsubstantiated details from their witnesses anyway (such as Johnson's rough notes on the timings of the screams) - we will.
Pick and mix.
Nel's is similar though, in that he is ignoring Mike and his wife. He's not saying they are untruthful but providing no rational explanation for them phoning at 3:16.
They both are being selective IMO.
I agree they are both picking the most suitable evidence to fit their case but Nel didn't accuse any of (non-expert) witnesses of lying to help the Defence. I think Roux's treatment of both Mr. & Mrs Stipp is very poor, attacking their character in a very underhand way. I guess that's all he has left but it makes the Defence look very shifty.
I don't think Dr. Stipp was at all and expressing it as "desperate to help the state's case" was just unfair.
He might say he was mistaken, but it was very balanced.
It's the main reason I believe that OP was actually distressed, due to Dr. Stipp saying it.
Wonder if defence will turn around and rely on that observation later on when it suits them.
Probably.
Nasty business.
FFS - he just mentioned Carice going up because she was concerned - using that to question the amount of time OP was in house. She actually said she went in house and then came back because she was too scared to continue.
I just wonder if Roux is overdoing it on Dr. Stipp - could backfire - and hopefully will.
What he just remarked about DELIBERATELY moving things forwards in time to stitch up OP regarding prosethetics, I don't believe the judge will accept that kind of stuff.
What is also bizarre now - god, every single word evokes a criticism for me here - because now Dr. Stipp is wrong for talking about the severe emotions - but these are the same emotions which Mike described as emanating from OP - so are the emotions in dispute???????
There's no reason at all, he didn't even realise who OP was I don't think!
I agree they are both picking the most suitable evidence to fit their case but Nel didn't accuse any of (non-expert) witnesses of lying to help the Defence. I think Roux's treatment of both Mr. & Mrs Stipp is very poor, attacking their character in a very underhand way. I guess that's all he has left but it makes the Defence look very shifty.
Comments
I still believe it was the bat first then the gun/bullets.
In two minutes tho? Two minutes to make up an entire cover story while smashing a door in?
Because none of his witness's did that >:(
That is like a husband accusing a wife of having affairs when it is them having the affairs >:(
exactly. surely you can't say "this evidence is rubbish and we want it dismissed" and then 5 minutes later turn around and say "but we'll use this little bit here to help us"
that being said, nel tore into wolmarans and dixon and then said "they also said the magazine rack wasn't where oscar said it was" so... i guess it works both ways
I think you could be right.
exactly. why would the stipps be biased?
Yeah he's basically saying - "our witnesses are perfect, their witnesses are liars" - nit if we want to borrow certain unsubstantiated details from their witnesses anyway (such as Johnson's rough notes on the timings of the screams) - we will.
Pick and mix.
Nel's is similar though, in that he is ignoring Mike and his wife. He's not saying they are untruthful but providing no rational explanation for them phoning at 3:16.
They both are being selective IMO.
So do I.
The crack through the bullet hole was made when he levered the damaged door panel out to make it look like he had to bash the door down.
no. nel only responds if roux has made any legal mistakes. he doesn't rip into the argument
Yes! I noticed that contradiction on Dixon and Wolmarans too.
Honestly Siobhan, I think we should become lawyers!
These are the top legal minds so I think we would have a chance.
Dixon, I don't feel had to be rejected as the court would have anyway
Wolmarans why not just argue with his reconstruction rather than say "he's rubbish - but by the way we like his answer about the magazine rack".
Bit like politicians aren't they. ;-)
Exactly.
Oh right.
There's no reason at all, he didn't even realise who OP was I don't think!
I agree they are both picking the most suitable evidence to fit their case but Nel didn't accuse any of (non-expert) witnesses of lying to help the Defence. I think Roux's treatment of both Mr. & Mrs Stipp is very poor, attacking their character in a very underhand way. I guess that's all he has left but it makes the Defence look very shifty.
I don't think Dr. Stipp was at all and expressing it as "desperate to help the state's case" was just unfair.
He might say he was mistaken, but it was very balanced.
It's the main reason I believe that OP was actually distressed, due to Dr. Stipp saying it.
Wonder if defence will turn around and rely on that observation later on when it suits them.
Probably.
Nasty business.
FFS - he just mentioned Carice going up because she was concerned - using that to question the amount of time OP was in house. She actually said she went in house and then came back because she was too scared to continue.
I just wonder if Roux is overdoing it on Dr. Stipp - could backfire - and hopefully will.
What he just remarked about DELIBERATELY moving things forwards in time to stitch up OP regarding prosethetics, I don't believe the judge will accept that kind of stuff.
What is also bizarre now - god, every single word evokes a criticism for me here - because now Dr. Stipp is wrong for talking about the severe emotions - but these are the same emotions which Mike described as emanating from OP - so are the emotions in dispute???????
I read that as sh*tty. But will keep with that
yes, lets! mind you, you can't just say "right i'm off" randomly throughout the case
It's not the time on the actual phone but the time recorded by the network provider which is very accurate.
Must be an old phone then. Most automatically set their time.
i had my hopes up that he could rip into it
Not only by Roux but by OP in his evidence, saying that Dr. Stipp didn't know what he was doing.