apart from trying to make the police look incompetent and making out every witness is a liar, this doesn't have any relevance to the shooting...I hope Nel can disprove all this, he seems a credible witness to me 

it definitely seems as if Roux is saying that someone else took photos before he did - this Col Motha (ballistics guy I think) and that there were so many people in there (he must not have been alone according to Roux) that stuff was moved and therefore the images are tainted 

the gun was on a rug...anyone walking in the bathroom could have caught the rug and moved its position. the guy was doing his job, police were in the building, I'm not sure I would remember who was in which room at the time 

it also wouldn't be his responsibility to cordon off the scene - that would be the officer in charge?  and if he's down in the garage photographing OP he can't be upstairs telling other officers to get out of the crime scene 

I'm not sure he's even going to call this guy to the stand, I do think its a ruse to say the police tampered with evidence. I can't see the what relevance of moving a gun a couple of centimeters would have on the shooting apart from incompetence/ tampering. 

think he's going for tampering and he's also saying that Motha's photos were taken at the same time as Van S was taking his so they must have been in the room at the same time, therefore in Roux's mind, this witness is lying 

if this is accepted, this could be enough to make the evidence worthless to the prosecution.  I also think he's playing on the fact that there is a lot of corruption in the South African police force so any chance to chip away and prove lies will help his stance 

4 X 4 metre room and he didn't see his colleague - think Roux is toying with this witness now 

I agree Pengy, but it doesn't alter the fact that OP admitted he shot through a door and killed Reeva believing it was a burglar and that is in itself a crime..so I'm not getting the relevance of tampering/corruption/incompetence  So far he has proven they were both in the same hall 5 meter's long at roughly the same time unless I missed something while I was making coffee. Also, have they checked that the times on both camera's are both identical? 

If you were concentrating on your job and there could be seconds discrepancies on the camera's it's entirely possible they were not in the room together 

I was thinking that - perhaps Gerrie Nel will do this and clarify for us 

seems like he is going to go through lots of these photographs and chip away at minute differences   I might have lost the will to live by then 

dinner must be due soon - gotta go and get some stuff ready for uni class tonight but I'm riveted by this enlightening testimony 

I already have..he's the most boring and irritating man on the planet  enjoy your day Pengy, I also have to make a move 

Yesterday and today's testimony has been like watching paint dry.

I think Roux, in his bumbling way, has asked some pertinent questions about the witness' claim that he was alone when he took the photos, and why he failed to take photos of the hole and damage on the bedroom door on his first visit.

Will Roux 'put it to the court' that the damage was not there immediately following the incident and somehow appeared later? 

The police and forensic investigation (imo) appears to be flawed and incompetent - and that's me being diplomatic.

We might find this mornings questions are irrelevant Yogi...before entering the photo's it appears the time on both camera's had not been checked..and at this point in time I am leaning towards a row before the shooting, yet again I am perfectly with my rights to say I had a mad moment and have changed my mind later on 

I think the camera guy is a credible witness and Roux hasn't flustered him, he was precise in his answers and as I said before it doesn't change the fact that he admitted to shooting Reeva/burglar.  

We all know what Roux is trying to do and perfectly reasonable to accept he would go down this route, but its still not going to change the facts that OP killed an innocent person, premeditated or not. But whilst he his doing so he is boring the pants out of me, I would be up for premeditated murder if I was married to him...I would willingly own up to it  

I haven't left yet 

I think you're right on this Yogi but I'm hoping Gerrie Nel will tear this to pieces 

Like her Dameship, I think Warrant Officer VS was a credible witness and Roux is chipping away at minor details for the most part - like stuff being moved- apparently a lot of press members on the media bench are asking if the cameras were showing exactly the same time as you said Dame 

One other further thing - I can't believe that OP is 3 metres taller than me when he's on his stumps 

that would make you minus what feet? 

  I spit my tea over my screen reading that 

I got that wrong   he's about half a metre bigger than me   I feel better now 

 I wouldn't want to be married to him either.

I am kind of warming to his bumbling, yet 'dog with a bone', style of questioning and think that he is a wily old fox underneath. It's his job to knock holes in the prosecution case and cast doubt on the credibility of their witnesses, and that's what he is doing (imo).

I completely agree with you that Oscar meant to shoot the person behind the toilet door (although atm I'm not convinced he knew it was Reeva), but can the defence present a credible case that he was in a panic and feared for his life? There's a long wait to go yet - my word, the wheels of justice grind slowly in SA -  and I shall reserve judgement until I've heard Roux's defence case.

Btw, have you notice that blonde woman who sits in front of the judge and the assessors? Is her sole role to pass papers to the judge? If so, I want her job - hardly any duties and a 3-4 hour day!

I agree with most points Yogi  apart from warming to Roux (slaps Yogi with a wet fish)  I am still leaning to a row...so much makes more sense than OP's version Yogi for me 

*I've applied for a job share with the blonde woman* 

its been reported on some sites the translator isn't actually translating properly, surely someone in SA can translate right  

 *ducks*

Seriously though, does that blonde think she does enough work to justify her wage?!

off to watch some more courtroom drama, back later.

she flicks her hair quite a bit  later Yogi 

The posh chap on Gogglebox summed it up nicely and despite the serious nature of the subject quite humorously too.

Nel asking for an adjournment at a significant point! I think this might be for maximum effect, maybe evidence sisproving OP's statement that he was not on his stumps when the shots were fired. I watch too much Criminal Minds and CSI 

Never watched it EC.

Interesting...Elbow height with prosthetics 126cm, shots fired at 130cm.

Elbow height without prosthetics 96cm so he would have had to have held is arms up another 13 inches approximately if my maths are correct and if the bullet projectory is going down higher than that even. 

if I have I've googled/worked out and nabbed bits for other parts of the tinternet  Also, if this is true, how would he hold a gun that far above his head, aim perfectly to kill someone on his stumps that Roux said he can't balance on 

Who's winning?

Moonieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 

Don't know, I'm leaning to the guilty side at the minute, but it changes daily 

Good to see you and hope to see you later and hope you're well...I have a school run shortly  

haaaaaaaa but if he fired it at shoulder height it would be different...so ignore my earlier post, I have  just looked on DS 

*wonders what Dameee looks like in running shorts*
you mean on wheels again

I'm not really following it tbh Dameee. I just pop in here to view occasionally or watch on the telly news Not feeling to bad fankoo

I haven't caught up, but simples, isn't it: every witness is a liar and OP is telling the truth, 'cos the witnesses have so much to gain from dishonesty

He killed her: in cold blood, of that I have no doubt, irrespective of any incompetencies

He's a player without a doubt

I'm feeling really sorry for the witness Manenga not understanding what Roux is asking him because I don't understand what he's asking or where he's going 

This Oldwage chap is not as entertaining as Barry 

I'm confused - were dogs barking?   although I do by an large think she's answered truthfully but the signing of the statement with an inaccuracy will count against her and I think by now everyone's memory has failed 

I'm liking the judge even more - she has a sense of humour and Oldwadge is the butt of it at the moment 

I'm thinking the same, wish they would get a shimmy on.

now come on EC they (the defence) need many adjournments and tea breaks and repeating of the same question 10 different ways to establish absolutely zero except that they haven't got a clue how to defence OP