We are going over the detail of OP shooting.. for 5th or 6th time.

It is a trigger for upset OP and then an adjournment. And its been done over and over.

The State do not even HAVE a version that can be questioned in detail.

I do NOT see that they are proving State version beyond reasonable doubt since they have not even put a version.

This is beyond daft.

I think the Judge should announce TIME.. and end the torture. There are other things Nel might cover, but I think he should be penalised for repeating this bit over and over.

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

Hi Wroughead.

I see you online.... late for the trial

Report to my office

I am off to bed soon.


Highlight of the day was Nel being proved wrong and being told off.... and I missed it.

Nel is often wrong and nobody is objecting?

For instance....He keeps misrepresenting Stipps evidence about lights on. They did not wake up until first bangs (shots) and so they said NOTHING about lights when Reeva went to toilet. Op has said he does not remember switching lights on... but he clearly did at some stage after the shots. That has NEVER been at odds with Stipps evidence.

I grew to like Roux... but I can not see why he is not objecting to Nel putting stuff that is WRONG and then confusing and badgering OP with it.

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

Hi rumpy well i have been watching live on sky news instead of comp. They started showing it live last week.

Like you i was wondering why roux did not object too much but if you refer to one of my past posts you would see that i do mention roux giving nel enough rope to hang himself and lose face, as i think he has been looking incompetent for the rotweiler he is supposed to be - he may have built that reputation, alas that does not make him the brghtest lawyer in the classroom.

I've seen this time and time again

I think nel will be done tomorrow and we will see the cross followed by witnesses for the defence - prepare to be surprised!


If,, as op said today - he was shouting at reeva to call the police, then how come not a single witness (all 5 of them) ever heard this when they heard according to their testimony, every other sound.

2 reasons (1) he never shouted to her at all or, (2) the witnesses are very selective in their hearing.

There may be defence witnesses to come who will have heard this and more.

If, indeed, op did shout for reeva to call the police, bearing in mind this was in the wee small and quiet hours of the night, then why did no-one hear that - other neighbours perhaps?

_________________
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

It would be good if some defence witnesses heard more. Although at this point it doesn't appear the state proved anything but just putting out a theory.

I saw that video of Oscar with all the children. He is a good guy. I believe his version of what happened. What an unfortunate, horrible thing for all of them! Thank you R. for helping those of us who are busy. Seems like Nel is a sadistic bully, trying to rip to shreds an already broken man ... I think he truly ENJOYS HIS WORK!! Has Oscar not suffered enough, and in life too?
IS THERE NO LIMIT to Nel's leash?? HE CAN ASK the SAME QUESTION 800 times?
OSCAR STAY STRONG for God's sake!

It seems I have made up my mind. Didn't - - - before. Not guilty of murder.

Good choice Joni

Certainly I believe he did NOT shoot thinking Reeva was behind the door.

What that leaves him guilty of... I don't know.

Maybe some sort of "manslaughter" thing, but maybe acquitted... the event viewed as an "accident"??

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

Thanks R. I hope Nel's behavior BACKFIRES on him and people start feeling sorry for Oscar. Even if they are still undecided at this point, just WHAT IF HIS VERSION is the TRUTH? THEN - how does this little runt/bully LOOK? I hope that is in some people's minds.

Wonder if he's a very tiny frustrated man ... WANTING to be 6'5" and trying to make up for it with a LOUD, yappy, relentless bark?

If the Judge finds O not guilty, I wonder if seeing his genuine on-going suffering decides ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - and he can go home...

I sincerely doubt he will be acquitted. I think it may end up on a lower charge. Even if he is now trying to cover his tracks as the prosecution seem to insinuate, or even if his evidence is slightly out of hilter to what he has already stated, I still don't think his intentions were to kill Reeva, so I have always maintained, given that he did kill her at the end of the day, the girl is dead by his hands, I still maintain he thought there was a serious threat to himself and Reeva at the time he fired those shots.

I wish we could all have been in that house that night, then we would truly know what happened.

_________________
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

Something bothers me ... with all this going on I would say I'm SURE - - "HONEY - HONEY I AM HERE -- IN THE BATHROOM!!" I don't understand that. Surely she knew he had guns.
I don't think Oscar wanted to kill Reeva. Even if there was a fight.
Do we believe those neighbors? Did they have a dog in the fight? I don't understand them - - either.
I do think it was a horrible accident! He must have been hyper vigilant. That area of high crime, his legs ...
knowing he is extra vulnerable.

We can not KNOW what Reeva was thinking... and it is kinda irrelevant, but just as idle speculation...

Maybe she heard the warning that OP shouted and so shut and locked the door. Then kept very very quiet, she thought safe in the toilet, but she did not want the bad guys to know she was in there. For all she knew they would overpower (kill) OP.. then would possibly overlook her in the toilet, provided she kept very very quiet. I think she was listening at the door.. not talking to OP obviously.
The shouting and then shooting is LONG in the telling, but may only have taken seconds. I have no trouble imagining that Reeva was trying to maintain a VERY low profile and hide for her own sake and would NOT call back or say anything.

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

It seems to me that this trial is a bit "Arse-backwards"

The State rested without laying out their theory of events. They didn't even make an opening statement as to what the they intended to prove? They do continue to "leak" the odd detail of their "case"... but no overall "version" at all. They did dump a lot of photos etc into evidence without saying why for many of them, and so the defence were not given an opportunity to object to them as items of evidence in respect to what the State contend they show. This seems nuts to me. While we are on the subject of photos... what was shown is that there are real doubts about the preservation of the crime scene and when photos were taken. What was really a photo before ANYTHING had been moved. With such problems shown to exist, I can not see why ANY photo should be accepted as evidence, certainly details within photos can not be relied upon.
So we do not have a Prosecution version as such, that they have attempted to prove at all, and certainly not prove beyond reasonable doubt. Instead we have OP's version and it is the State who are raising "doubts" about details, no doubt with the view that enough doubts about details eventually add up to doubt overall. However... so what? Even if some doubt about OP's version is established (and I actually see none), that does not DISPROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. And further... even IF OP's version is disproved, that does not mean that automatically "Any Other" version is true, and proved at all, certainly not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
And it does seem that this "arse-backwards" approach will continue with the defence about to call witnesses to support OP's version. They have to do that now obviously, OP is claiming his "version" as his defence, but it is strange that the State do not seem to have to present and prove a version of their own. Surely any such version would be mostly speculation. I know its NOT realistic... but how great would it be if Nel had to testify to a State version and be subjected to bullying and abuse and called a liar.

While I am on the subject of nasty Nel. I see a lot of posting about "hints" of verbal abuse, indicators of more serious abuse, just from the odd harmless phrase amongst OP's text messages. What then of the CLEAR evidence that Nel is a nasty verbally abusive man in his bullying of witnesses. I wonder what people might infer from that in regards his personal life and the way he treats his "significant other"?

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

Reading at some True Gossip Forums with posters so concerned over OP using different words and phrases in his bail application etc. On top of all the concern about all the nuances of every phrase in a "throw away" text message.

I wonder if the charge should be: 1st Degree Premeditated Grammar abuse.

I guess the "lesser included charges" could include: Felony poor vocabulary, and perhaps Second Degree Spelling Mistakes

I do think people have lost the plot when they see significance in such piddling detail, and I think Nel is fuelling the Mob by banging on about such trivia. It looks like desperation... The State have no case.

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

You could be right about Nel and his private life too. I don't quite know what to make of him sometimes, he's not IMO the prosecution lawyer I would have expected, other than his rotweiler stance and reputation, I don't see the legend as is.

Looking forward to the day's proceedings in about an hour and a half.

_________________
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

Hi Wroughead.... I am having a few computer problems... and making dinner

Need to check a few sites and get ready too.

I am looking forward to today.... end of Nel I hope!!!

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

Evening Rumpy

Yes since we are heading for the Easter break, we should hopefully see an end to the shennanigans from the pit bull. However, is there still time and a few possibly good witnesses to come from ROUX'S CORNER, lets hope so because we are at the last post saloon for OP. Roux will have to get this case back on track

I am typing this from my ipad and don't have a pointer for the keyboard , need to get one

_________________
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

Use a matchstick? satay stick, chopstick, pencil, knitting needle,

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

Tea-break Nel strikes again... wants 2 week vacation
(And Roux is just as bad)

Glad the Judge did not just agree.

WTF are they playing at? we have already had short days, days off...not to mention DAYS wasted in repetition.

I WISH the judge would say NO!!! Get on with it... we will work late nights and all weekend if necessary... NOBODY leaves this court until THIS trial is done.

Roux already said... after the evidence part they will want another delay to prepare closing arguments

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

I do hope that defence counsel has 'ear witnesses' who heard all this shouting which again OP is talking about and has stated several times assertively.

_________________
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

Do we know if there was anything on her phone? I.e. did she try to call someone, or in those moments had she tried to txt someone. If not what other reason would she have taken her phone to bathroom?

_________________
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