That's his aim. And it all sounds sort of impressive. And then you think 'What's he saying?'
That the last bangs were the cricket bat?
Why so massively loud then and shot like they make even defense witnesses think someone is shot?
And why were the actual gun shots so quiet that only the nearby Stipps heard them?
Or, were they later than the Stipps said and yet STILL no one heard the guns - J and B who were awake even? But then everyone hears the bats?
And you think - 'he's trying to pull the wool, this is bloody ridiculous'.
I can certainly imagine the shots waking the Burgers for example and being awake for the early screams. Makes sense. It made sense the first time Roux said it. Nel had a go, with the aid of his background cricket sounds, to imply that the recordings of the bat and shots were orders of magnitude different. I'm not convinced. The difference in background noise was a few times not 10s or 100s.
If anything stood out today to show without doubt Pistorius is a liar it was the Tasha gun incident.
Under his cross examination he didn’t ‘supposedly’ seem at all concerned that a gun someone has just handed him ‘misfires’ in his hand.
He didn’t even bother to warn Fresco that he had been handed a faulty and very dangerous weapon.
This is simply not credible, no sane person would act like that under those circumstances, totally beyond belief that he would hand back such a hazardous weapon without even a comment.
But of course it didn’t happen like that. He pulled the trigger disengaging the safety and the gun fired. However, in his desire not to accept responsibility he simply demonstrates what a liar he is.
Quite happy for Fresco to take the blame for pulling the trigger, but not him of course
It wasn't after 3:30 what the hell is Roux talking about
He said it was after 2-3 bangs. At around 3:16. Soon after.
Roux's pinning Stipp to another telephone call.
Stipp never testified the time of the "help help help" was anything like after 3:30
That's very misleading argument.
Absolutely! and I'm gob-smacked. I can't fathom where Roux is going here nor where he got the time from. Stipp's 2nd call is getting later and later! During Baba's cross it was: "...sometime after 3:17". During Stipp's: "We know what time you spoke... err... not spoke, that you made the call; it's 3:27 and 14 seconds", and already too late ! And now "after 3:30" !?!
I understood the first mistake, ok so Roux musta misread 3:17 as 3:27. I thought even it could have been a typo on the State's list which Roux was reading from. And I can understand Stipp could mistake bats for shots, or even place the 'help, help, help' out of chronology, etc.. but mis-recall making a call from home, one that Mrs Stipp testified to, with making call from OP's house!
Oscar seemed very blasé and detached throughout proceedings. I get the impression he knows this is just the first salvo and he is going to appeal any decision that doesn't go his way.
I can certainly imagine the shots waking the Burgers for example and being awake for the early screams. Makes sense. It made sense the first time Roux said it. Nel had a go, with the aid of his background cricket sounds, to imply that the recordings of the bat and shots were orders of magnitude different. I'm not convinced. The difference in background noise was a few times not 10s or 100s.
THEN you agree OP's lying that they were NOT asleep at 10pm
Bat experiment was done OUTSIDE , completely different to conditions that night
they do. being scared of how someone will react is not usual.
I disagree. You can be scared at someone's reaction without being scared of violence. Trying to project these text messages into some kind of motive is weak and the idea that just because she ended up dead means that it must have significance is idiotic. Its hindsight logic.
there are some absolute gems in the written document
"it is our respectful submission that the accused was an appalling witness. we cannot argue that he was the worst witness ever; that honour belongs to someone else"
I disagree. You can be scared at someone's reaction without being scared of violence. Trying to project these text messages into some kind of motive is weak and the idea that just because she ended up dead means that it must have signifcance is idiotic. Its hindsight logic.
not idiotic at all - Rationally speaking, argument led to Reeva being shot only 7 days after there were obvious problems between them and OP 's temper was out of hand towards her , not so lovey dovey in long messages which were all negative about the man/boy
there are some absolute gems in the written document
"it is our respectful submission that the accused was an appalling witness. we cannot argue that he was the worst witness ever; that honour belongs to someone else"
I can certainly imagine the shots waking the Burgers for example and being awake for the early screams. Makes sense. It made sense the first time Roux said it. Nel had a go, with the aid of his background cricket sounds, to imply that the recordings of the bat and shots were orders of magnitude different. I'm not convinced. The difference in background noise was a few times not 10s or 100s.
So all the other people and half the neighbourhood were woken by the bats, but they missed the gun?
And if it WAS the gun at the beginning, then OP was screaming his nut off apparantly before he shot Reeva, but the Stipps didn't hear any of that and Mrs Stipp was awake?
And, of course, it was ole wailey there screaming like a woman 'but in a man's voice'?
And everyone was totally wrong about it being a woman, as she'd already been killed?
My credibility is all stretched and it won't reach, sorry.
The last paragraph specifically mentions that if you advance a false defence to try to get off a crime you lose the right to have any mitigations considered which might potentially reduce your crime down a notch from what the charge is.
Well ok that means M practically impossible if the court rejects the intruder.
I think what Nel has gone for is to prove MWI on the intruder anyway so that it ceases to be a controversial decision to get MWI for Reeva.
There's some other stuff in the headers for example, in the case where an accused is lying, the state is not obliged to indulge in 'speculations' to chase down every single aspect of the crime which the person has covered up. Such might be considered to be the case with the first bangs which woke the Stipps. Nel certainly within his rights (legally) to leave that unexplained. OP could have done any number of things making a loud banging sound...
Another point however is the state writes "someone screamed" in their "facts" (and states - this aspect is in contention).
So even there, they retain an open-mind and just let the judge decide. Clever.
not idiotic at all - Rationally speaking, argument led to Reeva being shot only 7 days after there were obvious problems between them and OP 's temper was out of hand towards her , not so lovey dovey in long messages which were all negative about the man/boy
BIB1 Agreed
BIB2 Absolutely no evidence for this however much you might want to see it. It's not there. Just try and look at that at least with an open mind?
there are some absolute gems in the written document
"it is our respectful submission that the accused was an appalling witness. we cannot argue that he was the worst witness ever; that honour belongs to someone else"
Oscar seemed very blasé and detached throughout proceedings. I get the impression he knows this is just the first salvo and he is going to appeal any decision that doesn't go his way.
Yawning is not always about boredom or tiredness. Psychologically, yawns can indicate a suppression of anger or agitation that the yawner does not want to act on.
Remember that next time you're in a heated discussion with your partner!
BIB2 Absolutely no evidence for this however much you might want to see it. It's not there. Just try and look at that at least with an open mind?
3 month relationship
he's already having a go at her in public,.............jeez smell the coffee
if that was my friend daughter and I heard what he was doing , putting her down, making remarks at her about who she spoke to in public and when, scared her - i'd have read the riot act on the guy and got my loved one well away , warning signs were there ,crystal clear, not the first time he's been like that with women either is it
The last paragraph specifically mentions that if you advance a false defence to try to get off a crime you lose the right to have any mitigations considered which might potentially reduce your crime down a notch from what the charge is.
Well ok that means M practically impossible if the court rejects the intruder.
I think what Nel has gone for is to prove MWI on the intruder anyway so that it ceases to be a controversial decision to get MWI for Reeva.
There's some other stuff in the headers for example, in the case where an accused is lying, the state is not obliged to indulge in 'speculations' to chase down every single aspect of the crime which the person has covered up. Such might be considered to be the case with the first bangs which woke the Stipps. Nel certainly within his rights (legally) to leave that unexplained. OP could have done any number of things making a loud banging sound...
Another point however is the state writes "someone screamed" in their "facts" (and states - this aspect is in contention).
So even there, they retain an open-mind and just let the judge decide. Clever.
they were already awake. AS was definitely awake before, and heard 3 bangs. For JS to have also heard all 3 bangs he also can't have been asleep through any of them. probably stirring because of his wife leaning over to look at clock and coughing. so the sounds may not have 'woken' them had they been asleep.
Yawning is not always about boredom or tiredness. Psychologically, yawns can indicate a suppression of anger or agitation that the yawner does not want to act on.
Remember that next time you're in a heated discussion with your partner!
Maybe someone can explain how come I start uncontrollable yawning every time I read my daughter a bedtime story?
Yawning is not always about boredom or tiredness. Psychologically, yawns can indicate a suppression of anger or agitation that the yawner does not want to act on.
Remember that next time you're in a heated discussion with your partner!
yeah, it's usually over toilet seat being put down and washing up -always makes me yawn ..........so boring
Comments
I can certainly imagine the shots waking the Burgers for example and being awake for the early screams. Makes sense. It made sense the first time Roux said it. Nel had a go, with the aid of his background cricket sounds, to imply that the recordings of the bat and shots were orders of magnitude different. I'm not convinced. The difference in background noise was a few times not 10s or 100s.
Under his cross examination he didn’t ‘supposedly’ seem at all concerned that a gun someone has just handed him ‘misfires’ in his hand.
He didn’t even bother to warn Fresco that he had been handed a faulty and very dangerous weapon.
This is simply not credible, no sane person would act like that under those circumstances, totally beyond belief that he would hand back such a hazardous weapon without even a comment.
But of course it didn’t happen like that. He pulled the trigger disengaging the safety and the gun fired. However, in his desire not to accept responsibility he simply demonstrates what a liar he is.
Quite happy for Fresco to take the blame for pulling the trigger, but not him of course
Hopefully Masipa takes it on board.
Absolutely! and I'm gob-smacked. I can't fathom where Roux is going here nor where he got the time from. Stipp's 2nd call is getting later and later! During Baba's cross it was: "...sometime after 3:17". During Stipp's: "We know what time you spoke... err... not spoke, that you made the call; it's 3:27 and 14 seconds", and already too late ! And now "after 3:30" !?!
I understood the first mistake, ok so Roux musta misread 3:17 as 3:27. I thought even it could have been a typo on the State's list which Roux was reading from. And I can understand Stipp could mistake bats for shots, or even place the 'help, help, help' out of chronology, etc.. but mis-recall making a call from home, one that Mrs Stipp testified to, with making call from OP's house!
Bat experiment was done OUTSIDE , completely different to conditions that night
I disagree. You can be scared at someone's reaction without being scared of violence. Trying to project these text messages into some kind of motive is weak and the idea that just because she ended up dead means that it must have significance is idiotic. Its hindsight logic.
"it is our respectful submission that the accused was an appalling witness. we cannot argue that he was the worst witness ever; that honour belongs to someone else"
So all the other people and half the neighbourhood were woken by the bats, but they missed the gun?
And if it WAS the gun at the beginning, then OP was screaming his nut off apparantly before he shot Reeva, but the Stipps didn't hear any of that and Mrs Stipp was awake?
And, of course, it was ole wailey there screaming like a woman 'but in a man's voice'?
And everyone was totally wrong about it being a woman, as she'd already been killed?
My credibility is all stretched and it won't reach, sorry.
The last paragraph specifically mentions that if you advance a false defence to try to get off a crime you lose the right to have any mitigations considered which might potentially reduce your crime down a notch from what the charge is.
Well ok that means M practically impossible if the court rejects the intruder.
I think what Nel has gone for is to prove MWI on the intruder anyway so that it ceases to be a controversial decision to get MWI for Reeva.
There's some other stuff in the headers for example, in the case where an accused is lying, the state is not obliged to indulge in 'speculations' to chase down every single aspect of the crime which the person has covered up. Such might be considered to be the case with the first bangs which woke the Stipps. Nel certainly within his rights (legally) to leave that unexplained. OP could have done any number of things making a loud banging sound...
Another point however is the state writes "someone screamed" in their "facts" (and states - this aspect is in contention).
So even there, they retain an open-mind and just let the judge decide. Clever.
BIB1 Agreed
BIB2 Absolutely no evidence for this however much you might want to see it. It's not there. Just try and look at that at least with an open mind?
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/236123916?access_key=key-NYzppWhxB9srFURuJyXu&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
I've watched the whole trial and OPs has closed my mind a fair bit, otherwise I'd be ashamed of meself.
very clear, State's arguments are very powerful , covering everything
I wonder who that is?
Yawning is not always about boredom or tiredness. Psychologically, yawns can indicate a suppression of anger or agitation that the yawner does not want to act on.
Remember that next time you're in a heated discussion with your partner!
I wouldn't apply for any judging jobs then
i bet he's talking about dixon
3 month relationship
he's already having a go at her in public,.............jeez smell the coffee
if that was my friend daughter and I heard what he was doing , putting her down, making remarks at her about who she spoke to in public and when, scared her - i'd have read the riot act on the guy and got my loved one well away , warning signs were there ,crystal clear, not the first time he's been like that with women either is it
they were already awake. AS was definitely awake before, and heard 3 bangs. For JS to have also heard all 3 bangs he also can't have been asleep through any of them. probably stirring because of his wife leaning over to look at clock and coughing. so the sounds may not have 'woken' them had they been asleep.
Maybe someone can explain how come I start uncontrollable yawning every time I read my daughter a bedtime story?
You think Masipa hasn't got a tiny idea about what to believe?
;-)
Nope. An expert witness said he was, and I quote, "a sound expert"