Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Val1 said:
I'm guessing it's his sister acting as RS, going by the hair and the watch that looks like the one her and OP seem to share in the courtroom, the guys, probably a couple of the DT going by the outfits they both have on although I suppose if this was done with the pr team that they had hired initially(look at OP's beard, what time-frame did he have that?) they could just be wearing their regular "office" clothes. As for location, almost certain that would be OP's Uncle A's home and OP's current "jail".... pretty rough digs eh, bet every single person languishing in prison waiting for their turn in court, as well as most if not all the guards, would happily trade places with OP.
Click to expand...

According to the advertisement for the show it was done by a private investigator
 
PrimeSuspect said:
Thanks for posting, Margaret just posted it up thread. We're all pretty thrilled.
Click to expand...


I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw the ad on tv. I'm heading off to bed now so everyone keep bumping the video so all our regulars get a chance to see this......Night all
 
04009margaret said:
I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw the ad on tv. I'm heading off to bed now so everyone keep bumping the video so all our regulars get a chance to see this......Night all
Click to expand...

Thanks for the vid again Margaret, fantastic work, have a good sleep.
 
That house looks almost identical to his last one, to me.
 
Feynman said:
Nothing wrong in clarifying "mobility" to "limited mobility" in the affidavit IMO. He doesn't mention running on stumps in the affidavit, but he does mention rushing on them, but I see no real problem with that, i.e., he can allege he hurried - or rushed - as fast as he could on his stumps back to the bedroom without contradicting himself in the affidavit.
Click to expand...
My mistake. In his affidavit, he mentions 'running' once he has his legs on, and 'rushing' before he put them on.

It's confusing, because from one of his statements: "Pistorius claimed he was in a panic and ran to the bathroom on his stumps", but that wasn't in his affidavit.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/oscar-pistorius-not-wearing-prosthetic-legs-expert
 
james83 said:
Oscar on his stumps pulling someone out of the toilet, why would he do that when its not part of his version?.
Click to expand...

It will definitely now be more fascinating to find out when this was recorded. Why on earth would he re-enact pulling her out of the toilet struggling along on his hands and knees when he's testified he had his prosthetics on to bat at the door before he even got into the toilet area? It now means he was trying to find the best way to create a version that would be believable but at some point somebody has changed their mind about what his testimony was going to be and obviously decided not to show this video!

I don't think the DT know about this video. It's just too damning and if they paid to get this filmed, they'd have kept the recordings so they'd never have found their way into the PT's hands.
 
I've been gone a few days, but wanted to comment regarding Prof D's testimony...

1. What is all this fight/flight/startle nonsense? OP was found to have no diminished capacity at the time he killed Reeva, therefore his actions are being measured against those of the reasonable man. Assuming the person inside the toilet is an armed intruder who gained access by scaling the wall and crawling through the window rather than your awake girlfriend is not reasonable.

2. I've said it before and I'll say it again, OP is an elite athlete. He's an Olympian. In order to compete at that level one has to be as strong in mind as he is in body. I do not believe for one second that if he had this alleged severe anxiety/startle reflex that he would have ever qualified to compete at the absolute highest level any athlete can compete at.

3. If he had this extreme limited mobility on his stumps that the DT is putting to the court, I'd like to know why his house was not more handicapped equipped. He lived in a two story house for crying out loud. No elevator, no handicapped bars throughout, no wall-to-wall carpeting throughout...no evidence whatsoever that a handicapped person lived there.

The DT is throwing anything and everything at the wall hoping something will stick. MOO
 
Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 18m
@cynrobson Nel wouldn’t have to re-open - present the video to Derman to comment on.
 
Val1 said:
Like we all want to see the report after they've edited it.... what's the point?
Click to expand...

I think they're only going to edit out the points of contention, I.e. The stuff about his family.
 
Judgejudi said:
Love the new look, but
1. The posters' names are very small
2. The quotes are way too small and as a lot of us here are older, it's very hard to read.
3. "The following Users say thank" is in a huge font IMO and would look better if it was the same size as the names themselves. They just jump out from the page as they're so prominent. JMO
Click to expand...
Also, when you reply to a quote, we now have only wide short box to write in. It's a crowded space. Even if you go "advanced", it's a small area. I don't like feeling crowded when I write.
 
Are we sure that video is for real, not photoshopped or something?
 
AJ_DS said:
I'm confident that the answer is YES

The same thing happened with the Zombie stopper video.
Click to expand...

Nel had a hurdle with the zombie stopper video though. Roux objected to it because it wasn't included in the case file as evidence. The only way Nel was able to show it was because he got OP to say under oath that he didn't recall ever making that statement but if he were shown a video of it that would refresh his memory.

This video is unbelievable. Boy would I like to know when and why it was re-enacted. Looks to me like he was creating his defense and was originally going to claim he was on his stumps the whole time.
 
Wait a second, if we are on the last defence witness that means they had no plans to use this video in the trial, therefore it can not possibly be beneficial to there case right?, i seriously wonder if there is a mole in the DT camp because i can't see why they would put this video out but not use it in the trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 136 more.
Total: 1,939 (members: 137, guests: 1,802)

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
1,802
Total visitors
1,939
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,449
Messages
18,005,545
Members
229,399
Latest member
roseashley592
Back
Top