Just thinking of a smart-arse thing I might post elsewhere, and I quite like my analogy

Roux is a Master, playing "mental chess". Nel is playing "mental checkers". Jumping over pieces of evidence and testimony that do not suit his "version" in order to remove them from play. However, in a trial the image (at least) of testimony remains in the Judges mind, and she can also refer back to replays and any items entered into evidence.
As an aside: I think Forum posters are playing "mental tiddlywinks". Clicking away at something here, then something there. Making it "jump" but pieces remain strewn around randomly.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I see a lot of Gossip around this or that DETAIL in OP's narrative. For example: he could not have gone to the balcony to scream as he says. because Nel has a photo with the fan in the way. Even putting aside the question of reliability of ALL the the police photos presented at this trial...... a detail like that hardly refutes the entire story. Maybe OP did have to go around the fan. etc.
The point is: This scrutiny of detail is only being applied to OP's version and not the "State Version"... such as it is.

They can not present a detailed version. Exactly where OP and Reeva were at all times, who walked where. When. Did they have to pass a fan or any other object etc.

If the State can just claim in a general way... There was an argument over a meal time (or at least Reeva eating at 2:00AM?), Reeva screamed a lot and then Reeva ran to toilet and locked herself in, and OP shot. Then why hold OP to a standard of minute detail.

I would LOVE to hear Nel explain State's Version in DETAIL exactly what happened starting just after 3:17 with OP on stumps, firing shots. I would like Nel to talk us through what happened from then until people started arriving at 3:22AM.

It's ONLY a 5 minute period, so I cant see why the State Hypothesis could not provide some detail. Then I would like to hear Roux's response.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Hi Wroughead.

Court late again. Since Nel has been granted the 2 week vacation don't expect him to pretend even to be getting on with things.

I imagine he will take all day with this witness.

I think the Judge should have taken a firmer hand with all the time wasting.. from the outset.

6 hour days with half hour tea break and an hour for lunch... they could have tried a LOT harder!!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Today's submissions will be our fill for 2 weeks when the judge will be going over 2000 pages of evidence, you can bet your bottom dollar, she will have a lot of time to spot things that perhaps had not been as clear as they seemed to be in her court. I am thinking she is on OP's side already.

I wonder if Nel and Roux will spend time going over all the paperwork, as suggested by the judge.

I agree with you I too would like to know how the State thinks their claims are anything approaching hard evidence of the events of that night. I would love to know exactly what happened and the true time frame.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I just lost a post.

Blackout curtains do just that they blackout! I had them in my bedroom when I worked night shift. Trust me you need to put a light on to see and that is during daylight.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

If you lose stuff... try back button on browser... if you find it you mwy not be able to just enter it again... but at least you can highlight and copy.


Nel just said "now it makes sense to me"... So this MUST be a brilliant witness?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Nel trying hard to bully Mr. Dixon today, he thinks it is highly improbable that any tissue would hae ended up on the toilet lid if Reeva was where he said she was - well I would doubt that, because tissue could end up anywhere, particularly I would imagine, if this came about because of a fairly high velocity gun being fired at her.

The only thing that has bothered me is that Mr. Dixon by his own admission made an error of judgement by not using someone in his 'test' who was exactly the same height as OP, this surely is not a good test, therefore perhaps, Nel was right on this occasion to query it.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I do think Mr. Dixon as an expert should have taken exact measurements, at least that's what I would personally expect - so I can't say Nel is wrong on this occasion - not that for a second I'm backing Nel, but I think you know what I mean.

Measurements are actually quite important, and he's really talking about the evidence given in court by the Stipps. Mind you, Mr. Dixon won't be swayed, he is fully confident about his evidence, and won't be budged except for that one apology when he said he had made an error (which he did).


I agreed with Dixon when he mentioned the curtains, naturally (or am I just stupid) when fully opened, even at night in a full moon, the curtains let in quite a lot of light, but not when closed - oh duh! I think I'm stupid here. Nel can be so infuriating 'what was the cause of that light?' the witness already said this.

The man has stated that he puts external elements out of his line of sight - I see nothing wrong with this because he was supposed to be seeing OP's house externally and internally. He doesn't read newspapers (neither do I), he never watches tv, indeed he doesn't own one, and he doesn't own or listen to a radio - wow in SA all I can say is, there's nothing else to do, so presumably he's an avid reader.[maybe this will help the others catch up with me!]

I have been reading about Gerrie Nel, he is inideed, quite a figure in SA and elsewhere's legal circles. He handled one of that country's most celebrated trials, the Selebi trial, even being arrested at his own home while working on it.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I don't think Nel gets it.

The defence game is to raise "Reasonable Doubt" and this guy certainly does that. The longer Nel questions him the more these doubts are presented to the Judge.

It is the States job to do accurate tests etc... only they have NOT because they do not WANT to prove that any part of OP's version is true. It would be the STATE's job to do lighting tests and PROVE that you can see OK in the room... which they can not of course because any fool knows that with blackout curtains you can see FA.

After thinking about this guy's testimony, I think he is a fantastic witness. He is presenting evidence about a whole bunch of stuff. It would take longer and cost a fortune to have a separate expert on every area. And, as I say, exact measurements and samples and lab tests etc are not required. All this evidence relates to subjective impressions. What OP and witnesses might have seen and heard on the night of the incident. That is NOT the stuff of precise instrument measurement. To do that you would use humans to report what they could see and hear. Even a scientist... asked to measure what people could see and hear, would try and replicate conditions, but use human subjects to report on what they perceive.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I also think it stands Mr. Dixon in good stead that he's not joined the rumour crowd, I think Roux chose him precisely because as he said in his own words, he's different from most people, not having radio tv etc. any Media could not have persuaded him - I like that.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I have to go to town so will do my catchup when I return. Catch you later Rumpy.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

No rush... the lazy bastards are knocking off early anyway

What a a farce!

Typical "public Service" attitude. Having scored a 2 week vacation tacked on to the Easter break.... they STILL have the bare-faced cheek to ask for half a day off!!!

Nel has more "front" than Dolly Parton... and Roux is not much better!!

It would not DAWN on these work-shy dopes to actually work LATE today since they have 2 and a half weeks break ahead of them

AND.......
Don't hold your breath waiting for them to decide to start a half hour early!!

That is just something to say so they don't look like total lazy jerks today. They already decided it would be "too hard to organise" ahead of first day back. They may just forget about it by then, or decide its too hard every day. They would NEVER actually turn up on time to start at 9:00AM anyway... they usually do not make it for 9:30AM

Meanwhile... the defendant AND all the other people close to this case can just "suck it up" and endure this lot hanging over them.

And who cares that costs to retain the defence team are mounting on what was a 3 week trial.... now running into several months!!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

True Gossip Forum posters continue to miss the point.

Nobody is claiming that the noise of a cricket bat is EXACTLY the same as a gunshot. All that is claimed, and all that needs to be shown, is that cricket bat on door makes a similar sort of noise that might be mistaken for a gunshot, especially over 180meters (Burger evidence).

And people who go along with State Case that shots were at 3:17 continue to simply dismiss the bangs that both Stipps were sure were gunshots at 3:00 - 3:10. If they try and explain those bangs at all, it is dismissive... "could have been doors slamming or whatever" In which case you would think that the State would have done sound tests to show that doors slamming and/or a bunch of other things can cause loud bangs that sound just like gunshots.
It is telling that people are prepared to accept, with no proof at all, that almost anything could have made the first bangs (that sounded like gunshots), but they categorically deny that the cricket bat on door (which we know for sure DID happen) can make a noise that might sound like gunshots.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have never been to that True Gossip forum you mentioned, I must have a look for it, but from what you've said, they are incapable of thinking for themselves, or maybe their thoughts are more about themselves than others.

I agree, you would think since it's a holiday coming up, no court sitting for this trial for 2 weeks, they would have been willing to work just a tad longer than a six hour day, gosh I bet they would feel really hard done by if they worked here or in the States LoL

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

The State case in regards OP knowing Reeva was behind the door was itself dead from the outset.
It is based (largely) on testimony from ear witnesses who heard Reeva screaming (for her life) before the gunshots.

The simple facts are:
1. TWO sets of bangs heard by the nearest (and most reliable) couple who are the State ear witnesses. Both bangs sounding like gunshots to a man with military (gunshot) experience.
2.TWO events known to have made bangs
3. State's own Expert adamant that shots were BEFORE cricket bat bangs.

Roux manoeuvred Nel into Stating on record that the State's case is that gunshots were at 3:17AM (second set of bangs). That is contrary to evidence.
Further, it is physically impossible for gunshots to have been at 3:17AM given even the MINIMUM things that had to then happen before OP was on the phone at 3:19AM and in fact others were on the scene 3:22AM

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I was thinking too about this business of her having been shown to eat a meal at around 2am, as we know it's not an exact time and we all vary, but Nel was the only one playing on that, everyone else is saying around 10 OP said they ate early that night.

I don't think that evidence now matters a great deal, and it remains to be seen what Roux comes up with after the holidays.

Did you hear that apparently although Mr. Dixon does not do the media thing, he apparently has been using Facebook and Twitter to tell his friends that Nel was trying to say he was a rotten witness. Sky news showed the comments - just wondered if you heard this?

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Reading elsewhere I still see people who wilfully refuse to see the basic sequence of events... as outlined by the State's own evidence and witness testimony.
The Judge (I hope) with not be speculating on "any old thing" to account for testimony that is at odds with the State's version.

As I keep saying: There are two events KNOWN to have caused loud bangs and two sets of loud bangs testified to. The exact time of the first bangs has not been pinned down, but the time of the second set is just after 3:17. The cricket bat bangs were AFTER the shots.
It is just plain delusional for people to continue to argue the basic sequence of events.

Shots (3:00 - 3:10)---> Oscar screaming and shouting -----> Cricket bat on door (3:17)

The State contention that Reeva was screaming for her life has been disproved by the State's own evidence. The only evidence of an "argument" is Estelle van der Merwe, who heard voice (woman’s voice) around 2:00AM... not screams or back and forth.. just voice. That is not confirmed to be from OP's house even, and Security report all was quiet at 2:20 anyway. Then the State have the food digestion, 2 hours thing. Far from a reliable indicator of time. And even if Reeva ate... so what? That indicates a snack not an argument? So the State have..... NOTHING??

I do see some CYA from a few posters along the lines of..." Well if OP did not premeditate Murder of Reeva, then he shot with premeditated intent to kill an intruder".
The logic might be a bit tricky for people to grasp, but.....
OP CAN NOT be convicted of ANY crime involving the death of an intruder. There was no intruder. None was harmed, let alone killed. OP can not even be charged with anything like "attempted murder of the intruder" since there is no specific intruder.

OP is charged with a crime related to Reeva's death.

Since the Sate contention in regard "intent" to fire at Reeva at all is toast, I really think there is an argument that OP fired at an intruder (imagined) and "missed"... hitting Reeva by mistake.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Oh I don't think that the State have proved intent here at all, much of the SA population, however, would have us believe this was deliberate murder. I think it stems from the strict laws they have (as do some other countries) on keeping a gun, and the recognized uses of it in self defense. But the public are not behind OP with the exception of a few people, a mere handful that are outside the court on a daily basis (wonder what they'll be up to now!).

Remember too, right at the beginning of this case against OP, i.e. Feb 2013, the police made some terrific blunders. I remain amazed at the South African authorities who you would think would have learned over the years, and with a few other blunders on a big scale, made in previous cases - ironically, on Murder or supposed Murder cases.

Why haven't they learned?

I wish we had some members on the Board who are from SA and could make some of the psyche clearer to us who have followed the case.

I'm off now to have an Easter weekend, and some light relief.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

The State Case
(As reproted by the Daily Mirror - Live Blog)

The prosecutor says he believes the court will make the following findings:

• That Reeva ate within two hours of Pistorius having shot and killed her
  
• That while Reeva was awake and eating, there was argument which was heard by neighbour Van der Merwe
  
• Witnesses Johnson, Burger and Stipps heard Reeva's "blood curdling" screams when she escaped from Pistorius
  
• Pistorius fired four shots through the door knowing it was her
  
• Pistorius armed himself with the sole purpose of shooting Reeva

This of course is NOT proven by any stretch of the imagination. It is at best supposition, guesses that are yet to be proved.
It STILL contains the glaring omission of any reference to, let alone explanation of, the "GUNSHOTS" that all three close neighbours testified to in their evidence for THE STATE.

Extra State evidence:

• Both Stipps's heard three? bangs in rapid succession that they were sure were gunshots. Van der Mewre heard "explosions" that her husband said were gunshots.This was at a time earlier than 3:17AM. The time that Nel states unequivocally was the time of the "gunshots" in the State version.

I really do think things look quite different, even going solely by State's evidence, irrespective of OP's "version, when you include ALL the STATE evidence.

It helps further if you have a presumption of innocence (As the Judge should have)

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The EVIDENCE for the screams being OP is already there. Presented by the STATE'S own witnesses. Nel agrees that the evidence beyond OP's "version of events" is to some extent circumstantial. Nel contends that such evidence is nevertheless sufficient to prove a case. He announced he would be relying on circumstantial evidence to prove the State's case.

We have all three close neighbors who testified for the State convinced that they heard GUNSHOTS (at 3:00 - 3:10) BEFORE they heard screams, and before Burger/Johnson heard screams. THAT is powerful evidence that the screams were OP.. since Reeva was incapable of screaming AFTER the gunshots (State's own experts testified to that, it is accepted and not in contention)

There is your "circumstantial" PROOF that it was OP screaming. No more proof is required. Any "test" of OP screaming will only be confirmation, and all that need be confirmed is that it is PLAUSIBLE the OP can scream in a high pitched voice that may well be mistaken for a woman's scream (at a distance). I would say OP's cries in court have already confirmed that. This sound test will just be icing on the cake.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light