Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by Coldpizza, Mar 2, 2014.
Off topic: my sleep schedule is going to be so jacked up if I watch this entire trial.
I am sure she reviewed it with the states atty. So how different is it going to be?
I think if it were REALLY in conflict, then Roux would have had those three copies ready for court already. They would have been highlighted and passed around. LOL
Nevermind. I found it in my own post here months ago.
Her doctorate is here: http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-07232013-101616/unrestricted/BurgerM.pdf
PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT: THE NEED FOR
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
FACULTY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF QUANTITY
SURVEYING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Obviously she can stand up to lengthy assignments...
Roux may rue his aggressivenes against this witness.
12.34 Court has adjourned for a few minutes.
and article about direct:
If this is all the defense has to go on (i.e. grasping at the lack of adjectives in the original witness statement), then OP's goose is cooked, IMO.
Now the defense is telling the court what the witness should have said to investigators.
He's trying to diminish the severity of Reeva's screams...never mentioned anxious, blood-curdling fear as descriptors. She states she did but was told she would be able to testify about what she'd heard.
Opinion: While the defence is trying to hammer out (supposed) inconsistencies, he keeps inadvertantantly allowing it to be repeated, over and over, that the screaming was before the shots.
Roux is failing. He is trying to make it LOOK like she was mistaken. But he is nitpicking and twisting her words. She is staying calm and collected and he is acting like a drama queen.
Good morning peeps! Catching up with you guys...
Does anyone know if thetawniidilly and/or croakerqueen will have what I've missed?
Just the 5 minutes I've seen are very interesting to follow. Looks like attorneys badger for an answer all over the world :giggle: They are soooooo polite as they do it, my goodness.
Finaly Pros objects.
Note that there is NO inconsistency to her statements.
At one point she says there was screaming before shots.
This does not exclude the possiblility of screaming during or slightly after shots.
There is no inconsistency. Merely talking about different aspects at different times.
Judge should force Roux to move on.
Why is Roux allowed to talk to the witness about other witnesses???
I can't listen to him any longer... I think I will just read about it from this point on lol
Now here is something that I strongly obect to.
Roux is now talking as if he is a direct witness--talking about bashing the door with a cricket bat etc. This should come from a witness not from Roux.
Good morning :coffeecup:
Is the witness addressing Roux as My Lady?
Exactly! In the US, that wouldn't be allowed, as counsel is not permitted to "testify".
This is how the defense is going to try and get out of this witnesses damaging testimony:
Roux is setting forth the theory that the 4 shots happened while Berger and her husband were still asleep. THEN they heard screams, which woke them up. THEN they heard 4 bangs, which were actually the cricket bat knocking down the bathroom door.
NO, she is addressing the woman judge as My Lady.
To her credit, the witness told Roux that the investigator can testify as to what she said when she was interviewed too. Now Roux is arguing that she heard no screaming after the gunshots...as if that's the important part.
Ugh. He wants her opinion on what other people heard (or did not) that night. Attempting to talk witness into gunshots being the bashing of the door. Witness states she heard woman screaming, then man screaming 'Help, help, help'. She states she only heard the shots and not the cricket bat.
'After hearing what you call the shots'...Grrr.
Nooooo I can't watch it!!! Where can I read it??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Witness: "I'm sure that gunshots would be louder than a cricket bat on a door."
I love this witness.
So we see Roux' goal of trying to get the witness to confuse or substitute Reeva's screaming that Oscar's screaming.
Everything Roux is doing is or should be backfiring on Defense.
And now trying to confuse gunshot with door bashing by a cricket bat.
I hope they have a physicist if you recall my writing months ago:
Someone should tell Roux that the bullet breaks the sound barrier, and thus sonic booms are part of a gunshot and will carry far further than the cricket bat matter unless extraordinary factors are involved.
Pros. should win all this if they are intelligent and have proper witnesses etc.