lisasalinger
Juror13
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,602
- Reaction score
- 14
Yooohooo ... Lisa, if you're still around, can you tell me exactly how you think this pathologist was so discredited as to make his whole testimony nonsense? I am about finished with his testimony, and I really do not see it yet. TIA
He waffled greatly on the sequence of shots/injuries. He started off with Roux telling the court he felt very comfortable with his assertions and then Nel made it hugely apparent on cross that he didn't have a clue about how the holes in the door related to the injuries. If he wasn't sure, he shouldn't have committed to his testimony.
The wood grain striations is a nonsensical conclusion to me as well. How does a flat pattern on wood leave a striation?? My impression of that was he pulled that opinion out of his butt.
Botha claimed there was no blood spatter on the wall so she wasn't on top of the rack, then Nel shows him pics that blood spatter was on the wall and toilet lid and he's like ok, her head was near the toilet.
In talking about the splinters, Botha tells the state they should probably do some testing of black talon bullets in the door. Um, they did! Clearly he didn't study Mangena's testimony very closely.
The moment towards the end where Nel informs him that Reeva was primed for danger was classic. He had to concede that she likely could have screamed in those conditions.
One of my favorite parts of the day... Roux pulled a big oops... Yea those double taps was a goof on his behalf. Are you kidding me? I think the manner in which the shooter shot his gun that night is a fairly huge point to understand. If Roux doesn't understand what happened that night, his client is screwed! Or maybe he just Stipped