Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rumpole said:
Nel Stated that there was ONE colleague with ONE "other legal matter", but that the adjournment was being sought mainly due to more personal plans.

I put it to you... vacation plans etc.

Really... this is a Murder Trial. Nel can manage without one of his assistants. I hope the Judge tells them to "suck it up" in regards their personal plan disruptions and get on with it.

The trial is NOT meant to be part of the punishment and mental torture, especially since the defendant is INNOCENT until the verdict is reached, and may well remain innocent even then.
Click to expand...

A little travel might be an eye-opener. SA =/= US. I could easily see this happening in Ireland, where I live. It shouldn't, but it does.
 
fox1lady said:
Oh my goodness! Really? I would have thought this would have been a heartwrencher moment for him taking everything into consideration and reading the words to the effect of "today seemed perfect to tell you I love you", today being the day he killed her.
Click to expand...
BBM - yes, me too. Funny how he kept blubbering and/or vomiting when he couldn't remember which lies he'd told (or which version he was now recounting) and yet read the card out like he was reading the back of a cereal packet. No emotion.
 
Viper said:
BIB. No. I don't care if he had to run down to the kitchen and scribble a heart on a bar napkin. He had to have made some effort to memorialize his love and affection for Reeva on that day of hearts. Otherwise he is just an *advertiser censored******* and had no feeling of love, or even romance. This is Girlfriend Boyfriend 101. Very simple material to understand.
Click to expand...

OP is lucky the candy on top of her gift to him wasn't a bouquet of Blow Pops with a "You blow me away" tag. Love to see Nel make him read that aloud.
 
Paysee said:
Its night here and I am eating crisps as I browse here. Vegetables? Cheese? Don't make me feel guilty :tantrum:
Click to expand...

I'll one up you there....lol...I'm reading here and my bathroom door slammed shut on its own !!!!! <----due to a very windy day here and an open window....so....i never flinched.


OP....have a nice quarter of a century or hopefully more years in --->:jail:
 
G.bng said:
I was very surprised Nel didn't ask OP what he replied to Reeva when she asked if he couldn't sleep... or did he ask him and I missed it ?
Click to expand...

I believe he just said no. But he did sleep 5 hours by his clock. He said he was hot to Nel. No other conversation. Unless he wants us to believe his statement, he asked Reeva why she is calling the police.
 
Rumpole said:
Nel Stated that there was ONE colleague with ONE "other legal matter", but that the adjournment was being sought mainly due to more personal plans.

I put it to you... vacation plans etc.
Click to expand...

South Africa has the following public holidays coming up in the next two weeks.

18 April 2014 – Good Friday
21 April 2014 – Family Day (Monday)
27 April 2014 - Freedom Day (Sunday)
28 April 2014 - Public Holiday (Monday)
1 May 2014 - Workers Day (Thursday)
 
Nausicaa said:
You really think that's what an attorney's job is ?
Click to expand...

It's not. An attorney's job is to advocate.

In this case, however, I am not advocating for or against either side. Both the defense and prosecution have had their good and bad moments. Oscar's a crappy witness - I totally agree with that.

My comments about evidence were simply an explanation of the law and how it is applied - no advocacy on my part. Although there are many advocates on this forum who are advocating against Oscar and unwilling to concede even a millimeter on anything that could possibly benefit his case.
 
Magdalyn said:
Not confused here.

The card is evidence that Reeva loves him. Period.

If the words 'I love you', spoken, or written on a Valentine's Day card, are 'evidence of a loving relationship' we have a board filled with formerly abused men and women who would like to tell you otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think you're still confusing evidence and proof.
 
benn25 said:
Exactly he should of just said "yes she could of gone down for some food, but I dont know as I was asleep". End of questioning about Reeva's midnight snack.

The problem with OP throughout x-exam is his over elaboration of the questions posed to him, for whatever reason. Simple questions turned into elaborate answers when a yes or no answer would of sufficed or even I dont know would of been better.

It proves he's trying to prove his innocence too much by giving extra info which keeps coming back to bite him in the arse.
Click to expand...
BBM - I agree. A reporter said that "unless something happened from OP's perspective... then it didn't happen" - and that's it exactly. Even when he was reluctantly forced to admit he couldn't know if 'no woman screamed that night' (because he was, um, deafened by the gun shots) he still tried to insist no one but him screamed! And don't forget he didn't have his finger on the trigger of the gun which magically discharged itself. He should be studied in a lab. How could he possibly think anyone would buy that utter rubbish?
 
minor4th said:
I believe there is some widespread confusion of what is "evidence" and what is "proof"

A card that Reeva wrote "I love you" on the day of her death is "evidence" that Reeva loved Oscar and that this was a loving relationship. It is not "proof" of such, but it IS "evidence."

Reeva's previous comments that she was scared of Oscar's reactions and snapping at her is "evidence" of trouble in the relationship, at least on the date she wrote that. It is not "proof" that it was not a loving relationship, but it is at least "evidence" that it wasn't a loving relationship at that time.
Click to expand...

I think why a lot of people are having trouble with your posts on this subject is, you insist on using the word "relationship" as in "loving relationship".

There is no doubt that OP and RS were in a relationship. And there is evidence that RS was loving towards him (card, gift, making dinner). But there is no evidence that OP was loving towards her. And IMO, calling her Angel and texting her *advertiser censored* and OOO isn't an expression of love.

Is a relationship a loving relationship if only one of the parties involved displays their love?
 
minor4th said:
It's not. An attorney's job is to advocate.

In this case, however, I am not advocating for or against either side. Both the defense and prosecution have had their good and bad moments. Oscar's a crappy witness - I totally agree with that.

My comments about evidence were simply an explanation of the law and how it is applied - no advocacy on my part. Although there are many advocates on this forum who are advocating against Oscar and unwilling to concede even a millimeter on anything that could possibly benefit his case.
Click to expand...

In the interest of balance there are also people who are the total opposite of that(not aimed at you).
 
Nausicaa said:
Minor4th, you are far too intelligent really to believe what you have been arguing.

That's not a statement, BTW : it's either subjunctive or optative in mood.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense to me.
 
AdnanJanuzaj said:
Thanks for all the explanations. One more (last one I promise)

What is MOO?

My opinion only?
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen MOO before I came to this site, and I thought someone was impersonating a cow... but I didn't know why!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 86 more.
Total: 2,757 (members: 87, guests: 2,670)

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
2,670
Total visitors
2,757
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,156
Messages
18,020,325
Members
229,586
Latest member
C7173
Back
Top