IS HE GUILTY?

TNaicker Wrote:

---

> Not a fan of this soap opera...
>
> My two cents worth...if majority of shots fired
> randomly into bathroom, indicative that he didn't
> know where in bathroom "intruder" was...if shots
> concentrated to small part of bathroom / door,
> indicative that he knew where in bathroom
> "intruder" was and therefore more indicative of
> intent to harm / injure / kill whoever was behind
> that portion of door / in that part of
> bathroom...
>
> Will see in three weeks what verdict is...guilty
> or not, of no interest to me...only view I have of
> OP is as an athlete and that his lack of
> sportsmanship showed when the athlete from Brazil
> beat him...


will not be over in three weeks

Will be guilty, sentenced to 10 yrs of which about 6yrs will be suspended and he'll probably sit for about 12 mths. Lets see how close that'll be.

The defence guy is pants..
He's just let the witness say it would take to long to swing a bat onto the door to make the noise he heard compared to the rat tat tat of a automatic gun.
He should just be asking for quick replies,yes,no's or maybes.

davetheflower Wrote:

---

> The defence guy is pants..

Yip...

Court cases are often a competition between the counsel rather than a genuine seeking of justice IMO


I think that it is way too early to "consider our verdict"
I am sure that the prosecution's best punches haven't been thrown yet but I have the defence ahead on points right now!

3 of the 4 bullets hit the "intruder"...that would indicate that shooting was concentrated to small portion of the bathroom...this indicates the OP knew roughly where "intruder" was in the bathroom even though the door was closed...and you would only have this "insight" if you knew who the person was and why they were in the bathroom...

Can't they move to the interesting parts quicker or does the television cameras and attention play to the egos of the participants in this soap opera ??

4th day and just started on 4th witness...going to take a long time and with defence advocate keen on repeating questions in the hope that people will suddenly start parroting his / OP's version of events, going to take even longer...

could it just be that the cricket bat noises were first done..thus the screaming..(1st set of shots)...then the actual gun shots..with the last one...or whichever to be honest..it really doesnt matter.....cos the defence says there could not have been screaming after someone is shot with that infliction

RACING GURU Wrote:

---

> could it just be that the cricket bat noises were
> first done..thus the screaming..(1st set of
> shots)...then the actual gun shots..with the last
> one...or whichever to be honest..it really doesnt
> matter.....cos the defence says there could not
> have been screaming after someone is shot with
> that infliction

Guru,thats why opinions could change daily ...........like you, half way through the afternoon I suddenly saw the prosecution quite happy with confusing noises .............but what they are contending (I think) is that he was in a rage ,tried to break down the door and then shot when he got further enraged cos he couldn't get to her????????
Fits the witness statements better?????

I've heard that the reason for him shooting at the toilet area was that he heard a noise come from that area after hearing a previous noise from the bathroom window...that "intruder" was one bumbling idiot to have made more than one noise...the only time a person would make a noise is if they know there is no consequence for the noise...an "intruder" on the other hand will know that ANY noise will draw attention to the area and hence there are possible consequences and will do everything possible to avoid any noise and moreso if they had already made a noise...to have done so twice is not logical behaviour by an "intruder" but by some-one who didn't expect any consequence for the noise...

The prosecutor is good...the defence attorney likes the attention...

P.S. I've been working from home today so decided to see what the fuss is about...

Every day is going to be like another move in a marathon game of chess...........and watching it to and fro is going to be fascinating!

the state is adamant that she was shot @ 3.17

why will I shout for help before i shot some one
Dr, Stipp said he was woken up by shots, walked out called 911 at 3.17 and then heard 2 or 3 bangs then Roux pointed out and that those bangs was in fact the bat breaking down the door,

Roux ask him to agree that after the shots, that wake him up, and seeing RS as he came into the house, that it wasn't possible for her to scream after the shots, as she would have been unresponsive that the only person that could have been screaming was OP.
Gerrie Nel jumps up and says that is the states case that the fatal shots was fired @ 3.17, he just sunk his own case and putting his own witness testimony in jeopardy, various witnesses has stated that before 3.17 they heard a man shout for help

must say he is changing my mind, he does have a plan to prove that the screaming that was heard was AFTER the shots and it could not have been RS, if he succeeds with that that will rule out the notion that OP and RS had a fight before he shot her

JAMES BLOND Wrote:

---

> the state is adamant that she was shot @ 3.17
>
> why will I shout for help before i shot some one
> Dr, Stipp said he was woken up by shots, walked
> out called 911 at 3.17 and then heard 2 or 3 bangs
> then Roux pointed out and that those bangs was in
> fact the bat breaking down the door,
>
> Roux ask him to agree that after the shots, that
> wake him up, and seeing RS as he came into the
> house, that it wasn't possible for her to scream
> after the shots, as she would have been
> unresponsive that the only person that could have
> been screaming was OP.
> Gerrie Nel jumps up and says that is the states
> case that the fatal shots was fired @ 3.17, he
> just sunk his own case and putting his own witness
> testimony in jeopardy, various witnesses has
> stated that before 3.17 they heard a man shout for
> help
>
> must say he is changing my mind, he does have a
> plan to prove that the screaming that was heard
> was AFTER the shots and it could not have been
> RS, if he succeeds with that that will rule out
> the notion that OP and RS had a fight before he
> shot her

u crazy...if u believe..that the prosecution has just sunk their own case...or even put their own witness testimoney in jeopardy....on the contrary...its exactly whats he wanted to hear that the fatal shot was at 3 17...