He is not allowed to have any contact with his lawyers once he starts his testimony. So they can not advise him. I doubt they would blatantly cheat and pass messages via OP's family, but the family themselves may be advising him. They can not know the exact legal advice that Roux would give.

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

If you read True Gossip Forums you see that there are a whole lot of traits that apply to ALL defendants.

Narcissist, Sociopath, passive aggressive, etc

And if the defendant is male, also:
verbally abusive, physically abusive, controlling, jealous, violent towards women, etc etc

I wonder how much of what people post is a reflection of their own warped psychology and that of people they associate with in their own lives?

FWIW I see Reeva AND OP as within the range of NORMAL young people. Both a little immature... but that is common enough.. it's part of being young. I see nothing that would rise to the level of abnormal psychology, though OP could well have genuine feelings of vulnerability, more so than an "able bodied" guy. I do not think he chased Reeva into the toilet at 3:00AM and shot her intentionally. That "does not make sense" and so is Not True.

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

I don't believe he chased her there either, or that she fled their fearing for her safety - none of that whole scenario makes any sense to me, if that were the case, and she was terrified of him, most women wouldn't flea to a bathroom, they'd run as far away as possible, and even right out the front or back door, whether she had any clothes on or not, in a desperate life threatening situation, a woman will just flea if she gets the chance - I said at the outset and since, that I simply think she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As for there being no intruder in the house - OP just like you or I, had no way to know whether the intruder was there or not - it's a case of 'well what would I have done in similar circumstances' and given the nature of life in SA where house breaking and violence are frequent, not one or two breakins in that area per month - almost a daily occurrence.

_________________
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

For the record...

I don't have a problem with a strong prosecutor (or defence attorney).... they are of course doing their job in advocating their side forcefully.

What puts Nel out side those considerations is that he must KNOW that the State case is a stretch... KNOW that is not true.

He knows that you can not parse words in just a few texts out of hundreds and draw any conclusion at all.
He knows from his own witnesses when the gunshots and then bat noises were. He knows that the "screams" were only reported by TWO couples... one of which was too distant to be totally reliable, and clearly influenced by news reports and their own evolving theory about what happened.. He KNOWS that these screams were after the shots.. and so NOT REEVA FOR SURE... etc etc etc..
He KNOWS that the police botched the investigation. He knows how serious that is and how it brings in the reliability of all the cops evidence... especially photos.

People have compared Nel to Juan Martinez. As I have said...

NEL IS NO JUAN MARTINEZ

Marinez has seen the overwhelming evidence of what Arias did, the evidence of blatant lies told with conviction, then new lies told with equal conviction. Arrogant boasts that she will never be found guilty. manipulation of all around her.. etc etc there is no doubt.. He is passionate because of that. He is a "bull dog" only because there is good reason. He has seen the evidence and he is convinced beyond ALL DOUBT. And of course... prosecutors in some cases may well be sure of guilt and be wrong when the verdict comes down. I think the critiacal point is that the prosecutor genuinely believes the defendant is guilty. I do not think Nel is that sure. My guess is that he knows full well that OP's version of the squence of events is true. There is no way that Nel could have gone into this trial convinced beyond all doubt. He must have known the limitations of his evidence. He knows he is verbally abusing an "innocent man" as far as the version of sequence of events goes.

That is why I see Martinez as a great prosecutor, and Nel as a Nasty Man.

I would have been quite OK with Nel going after OP in respect to the decision to confront an intruder... but his line of questioning is .. calling OP a liar.. Nel of all people is familiar with all the evidence that proves that OP is telling the truth (about the sequence of events)

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

I am not sure if the opened "bathroom window" (before you get to the bathroom) was open. IF it was, could Reeva have opened it on her way to the bathroom?
Saw the TV program. It was pretty good.Reeva's Mother said her Dad had a mini stroke. Sometimes they precede real strokes.

My guess is that Reeva opened bathroom window because it was hot and muggy... aircon not working. Then went for a pee.

She shut door and turned key to lock it when she heard OP shouting about intruders and for Reeva to get down (hide).
I imagine she stood by door keeping very very quiet... not daring to make any sound.. as she heard OP shouting at intruders.
She stood by the door listening.

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

That's what I was thinking R. I bet this took place in seconds!! He was hyper alert about robbers. I don't blame him. How scary to live there. They surely would know at night he took off his prosthesis. Not good. Wonder if many people there have guns ...

I haven't seen the photo of the duvet. Is it here? I looked.
Wasn't Reeva on the floor doing yoga? Was the duvet folded up on the floor? She might have put it there to work out?

I posted it in the trial thread Joni...that's where you will find minute by minute updates as trial progresses each day, as well as stuff like the photo when it comes up during trial..

PISTORIUS TRIAL - Streaming Links and Updates
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1210&start=700#p73428




I also posted that pic now in "Reference thread" so it's easier to find.

PISTORIUS REFERENCE - Documents, Photos etc (NO DISCUSSION)
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1211&p=73551#p73551

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

I seems to me the SA system is quite different.

This cross examination of Op is VERY critical to the State. Having "rested" their own case in chief they are still able to make a case by refuting OP's testimony and by presenting more of their own version while doing so.

I am not sure that we KNOW exactly what the State case is (in fine detail) it would seem unfair if that is never spelled out and the Defence given a chance to respond? But maybe we will not see a clear "State version" untill closing arguments? Strange to say the least.

Anyway.... this cross of OP is critical and so Nel is understandably going on for a while. It also is not what I am used to, that questioning (from both sides) can be so slow and repetitive. Same question asked more that just a few times. I long for the judge to rule "asked and answered"

I think once Nel has finished there will need to be some minor damage control from Roux to clarify details that OP is not explaining well and that Nel is seizing on to take issue with. Things that Nel says "do not make sense".. but in fact do make sense. I am sure Roux will clarify.

Then the World is Roux's oyster. It is the State "sequence of events" that "makes no sense".. based on their own witnesses testimony. The sequence of events is pretty clear and obvious if you look at the State witness testimony as a gestalt. It is well supported by what hard evidence there is.. such as times on phone records.

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

State Time Line "does not make sense" and so is not true.

The 3:00 time is vague.. could be 3:10... but I accept that the first bangs were somewhere there. bangs described by all 3 CLOSE witnesses. One with experience with guns, Dr Stipp, sure they were gunshots. (I agree)

Then comes the screams and voices.

Estelle van der Merwe heard crying not scream and concedes it was Oscar (on husbands advice)
The Stipps hear screams and assume its a woman
The Burger/Johnson are at a distance and hear screams they assume is a woman. Burger's testimony has "evolved" to add descriptive adjectives such a "Blood curdling"
It is clear to me the gunshots were at the 3:00 (ish) time and the cricket bat was at 3:17.
3:17 for gunshots is impossible as I have explained many times.

With gunshots at 3:00 (ish) the State's own experts testified there would be no screams or loud sound from Reeva, and so the "women's screams were logically OP... who has testified to screaming at that time.

Note. The State has only managed to find 4 witnesses out of potentially hundreds? If you include a radius at the distance of the Burgers, that mention "woman screaming". In fact just two couples... and a couple are NOT 2 totally independent witnesses.. and so the State have two perceptions of Woman screams. A mis-perception is NOT unusual at all.. even if everybody hears the same mis-perception. And here we have just two couples mis interpreting the screams as being a woman. The simple fact is the State's own expert witnesses (and the time of events) prove that the 2 couples who heard a woman scream were mistaken in their perception that the screams were those of a woman.

The gunshots were at 3:00 (ish) time and cricket bat was at 3:17. I do not see any valid way to refute that

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

There is a possibility of a scream after first shot (in the 4 seconds or less)... but VERY unlikely.. would be VERY brief, if at all, and so little more than a squeak... masked by gunshots.
All the "scream" testimony relates to the time AFTER the gunshots. It was NOT REEVA.
There were only two couples who the State could find out of potentially hundreds (and one of those couples was at the limit of a range to hear much of anything, let alone detail. They came forward only AFTER the case had been in the news. I would give their testimony little weight at all.. it indicates desperation by the State to find ANY old witness to screams), and they are all testifying to what they heard (screams) after Reeva was dead.
This is the evidence presented by the State's own ear witnesses and expert witnesses.

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

Something I I just noticed about Duvet photo.

It is very distorted view. The Duvet looks to be MUCH smaller than the bed... which I assume is not how it really is.

Photo distortions like that are a result of the camera lens used etc. I think Roux is VERY wise to question accepting photo evidence showing the denim on top of the Duvet. Photos can give a false perception.

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

Yes. Then DID Reeva fold it for some "comfort" while she was doing her Yoga? I would do that - make it thicker.
'nite all. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The second bangs that Nel has stated categorically to be time of gunshots were just after 3:17. OP's first call was 3:19

There is no 5 minutes between?

There are two events KNOWN FOR SURE to have made loud bangs. Two sets of loud bangs heard by State's nearest and best witnesses. State Expert clear that cricket bat was AFTER shots.

I really can not see how anybody can reasonably continue to question the sequence of events. And the times of those events as fixed by phone records, or the range of time testified to by witnesses.

Nel is having to Force an unlikely (impossible) interpretation on the facts his own witnesses have testified to... solely to force "woman screaming" into the narrative.

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

SUPPORT FOR OSCAR PISTORIUS
Oscar Pistorius – athlete, ambassador, inspiration – innocent until proven guilty

http://supportforoscar.wordpress.com/

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

It is nuts arguing back and forth what lights are on when on the HiFi


Why not just SHOW the equipment if its important?

Photos are no damned good... we know that.

Did the cops take the hifi into evidence? Not entered in court if they did.

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

"Get the fuck out of my house"

Clinches it for me.... totally believable!

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

Nel is TOTALLY WRONG... I wish OP had taken him up on the bet!!!

I REMEMBER him mentioning hearing the toil;et door slam... TODAY!!!


Not for the first time Nel is WRONG... I do wish Roux would object more often

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

Nel bullies and badgers and the says "YOU FIRED AT REEVA!"

OP gets upset and says "That's not true"


Then Nel has the audacity to say " Why are you getting upset now?"

Another adjournment... on cue due to Nel being a Nasty Bully

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