Skip to main content

Wolmarans is frustrated that he can't hand in literature he wants court to see, Nel asks him to just answer the questions.

 

<small class="time"> 48s</small>

Wolmarans: "My lady, what happened behind that door we will never know."

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

WW: "We know there were four shots fired through the door. Four cartridge cases were retrieved. I retrieved a bullet from the toilet bowl.."

FM
Originally Posted by Yogi19:

Why does it matter where Reeva was standing and the way she fell down? Surely her behaviour would have been the same, whether she was in the toilet hiding from an intruder, or hiding from a raging Oscar.

 

 

exactly Yogi,,,I think they are trying to prove that OP shot in rapid succession and didn't aim  even though the bullet holes moved from right to left across the door 

Dame_Ann_Average
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Yogi19:

Why does it matter where Reeva was standing and the way she fell down? Surely her behaviour would have been the same, whether she was in the toilet hiding from an intruder, or hiding from a raging Oscar.

 

 

exactly Yogi,,,I think they are trying to prove that OP shot in rapid succession and didn't aim  even though the bullet holes moved from right to left across the door 

I see.

Yogi19
Originally Posted by Yogi19:

Why does it matter where Reeva was standing and the way she fell down? Surely her behaviour would have been the same, whether she was in the toilet hiding from an intruder, or hiding from a raging Oscar.

I think he's trying to create doubt with the State's case - he's just obfuscating matters in my opinion.  I had always believed that the first shot hit her hip, the second almost severed her arm  [which would have caused massive blood loss], the 3rd ricocheted, and the fourth as she was falling was the fatal shot.  I believe immediately after that fatal shot she was dead and not still breathing as OP has testified - thereby showing he has lied on oath.  It needs to be established to credit or discredit witnesses depending on which side of the divide you sit 

FM
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Yogi19:

Why does it matter where Reeva was standing and the way she fell down? Surely her behaviour would have been the same, whether she was in the toilet hiding from an intruder, or hiding from a raging Oscar.

I think he's trying to create doubt with the State's case - he's just obfuscating matters in my opinion.  I had always believed that the first shot hit her hip, the second almost severed her arm  [which would have caused massive blood loss], the 3rd ricocheted, and the fourth as she was falling was the fatal shot.  I believe immediately after that fatal shot she was dead and not still breathing as OP has testified - thereby showing he has lied on oath.  It needs to be established to credit or discredit witnesses depending on which side of the divide you sit 

Thanks Pengy.

Yogi19
Originally Posted by Pengy:
 

I think he's trying to create doubt with the State's case - he's just obfuscating matters in my opinion.  I had always believed that the first shot hit her hip, the second almost severed her arm  [which would have caused massive blood loss], the 3rd ricocheted, and the fourth as she was falling was the fatal shot.  I believe immediately after that fatal shot she was dead and not still breathing as OP has testified - thereby showing he has lied on oath.  It needs to be established to credit or discredit witnesses depending on which side of the divide you sit 

 

 

me too Pengy...and she put her hands up automatically to try and defend herself 

Dame_Ann_Average
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Yogi19:
 

 

 

exactly Yogi,,,I think they are trying to prove that OP shot in rapid succession and didn't aim  even though the bullet holes moved from right to left across the door 

I see.

 

 

and then after I typed it all all...Nel said it, he could have said it before I typed it but I'll forgive him  

You are a hopeless case.

Yogi19
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 

 

i think M'lady seems to have knocked the tea breaks on the head 

or she got tanked up during Nel's adjournment 

 

 

do the male witnesses have to wear their jackets when giving evidence?  M'Lady was insistent to the point of nagging to get wollie to put his jacket on? 

FM
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 

 

i think M'lady seems to have knocked the tea breaks on the head 

or she got tanked up during Nel's adjournment 

 

 

do the male witnesses have to wear their jackets when giving evidence?  M'Lady was insistent to the point of nagging to get wollie to put his jacket on? 

 

 

I noticed...maybe some sort of dress code 

Dame_Ann_Average
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 

 

i think M'lady seems to have knocked the tea breaks on the head 

or she got tanked up during Nel's adjournment 

 

 

do the male witnesses have to wear their jackets when giving evidence?  M'Lady was insistent to the point of nagging to get wollie to put his jacket on? 

It would seem so. Other witnesses have asked her permission to remove their jackets before performing re-enactments, and them put them straight back on.

Yogi19

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×