Skip to main content

Roux: abuse is different but the effect is the same... 'I've had enough' of the effect over time of disability.

 

<small class="time"> 31s</small>

Roux explaining his comparison with abused woman. She had had enough. 'The effect of abuse over time, filled cup to the brim

 

<small class="time"> 30s</small>

Roux: when that woman picks up that firearm, it's not about one punch of slap, it's about the cumulation of the 67 punches before

 

<small class="time"> 18s</small>

Roux has built up a head of steam, and admits to having already summed up much of his later arguments in these preambles.

 

tell me these aren't just preambles or we'll be here all day 

FM
<small class="time"> 4s</small>

Roux has jumped to the defence conclusion before mid morning break. He's going to hammer this home all day

 

<small class="time"> 46s</small>

Roux: state told this accused that he committed premeditated murder, got up from bed, put on legs, armed himself...

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: then they called (former IO) Botha who says Pistorius put on his prosthetic legs…

 

<small class="time"> 12s</small>

At the bail applic hearing, investigating officer Hilton Botha was a crucial character saying OP shot from just outside door

 

<small class="time"> 25s</small>

Roux: you get a finding in the bail app that it’s premed murder. You think the accused in court is not apprehensive?

FM
<small class="time"> 50s</small>

Roux - still shrill with indignation - discounts Nel's "mosaic" theory of building up evidence against

 

<small class="time"> 43s</small>

This was the orig State case: that it was pre-med murder as he'd had time to put on legs before firing. Later dropped

 

<small class="time"> 38s</small>

The photos of crime scene disproved notion he'd been on his legs when he fired. State insisted tho it was still pre-med

 

<small class="time"> 39s</small>

Roux jumps on fact Nel cant use a Radio Jacaranda interview in heads. (Saw that one coming)

 

 Retweeted by 
<small class="time"> 8m</small>

Roux fumbled there - the women abuse analogy to explain OP fed up of the abuse of having no legs was in staggeringly poor taste

 

<small class="time"> 13s</small>

Roux: The holes are so big he has to plug them. He cannot have the Law Report Jacaranda 94.7.     Charl is on form today 

 

<small class="time"> 34s</small>

Roux seems to be winding up already saying he's going to sum up his main points

 

<small class="time"> 8s</small>

RT : Roux: you can't 'combine all the could-be's' to make a fact.    fair point 

 

<small class="time"> 32s</small>

Roux v critical of Gerrie Nel for quoting from a local radio interview 'Thats naughty' he says    that's really tickled me 

FM

Roux: Fresco contradicted himself so many times, he was speeding - he was out to incriminate accused because he was accomplice

 

Roux: what I don't find in his 204 statement are the offences that he's getting indemnity for in turn for testifying.

 

<small class="time"> 39s</small>

Irony of 's disability defence is it undoes a lifetime of insisting he is as able, or more able, than his peers.

 

I want to see Judge Masipa put Gerrie on the naughty step 

FM
<small class="time"> 13m</small>

There's something more than a little stomach turning about Pistorius using the abuse of women in his defence.

 

<small class="time"> 57s</small>

Roux says former girlfriend Samantha Taylor 'had a motive' when she gave evidence

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: Taylor doesn't know the time or place or reason why they were together - material contradiction between Taylor, Fresco.

 

Oscar Trial Channel ‏@OscarTrial199 10s
#oscartrial Roux: Fresco didn't tell us when last his gun was tested - in other cases where I was involved, gun was sent for testing.    

 

talk about clutching at straws 

FM
<small class="time"> 55s</small>

Roux: … the gun was not mechanically sound. BB

 
<small class="time"> 38s</small>

Now the Tashas incident: 'He shd never have handled that firearm. He's not avoiding blame but he didnt delib pull trigger

 

<small class="time"> 53s</small>

Roux: concedes that his client is guilty on the first alternative to the count - negligence.

 

<small class="time"> 57s</small>

Judge asks; So what shd this court find? Roux: He's guilty of being negligent (re Tashas incident)

 

<small class="time"> 3s</small>

Roux says on possession of ammunition, law doesn't say anything about putting your gun in someone else's safe.

 

<small class="time"> 13s</small>

So Roux going all out now to show OP is willing to take blame - for certain issues. He shdnt have touched gun in restaurant

 

 

FM

Roux: there is nothing to gainsay his version - bring Section 205 against his father, take a statement.

 

<small class="time"> 9s</small>

Roux: in dealing with main charge, let's look at real common cause facts - there were 4 shots fired.

 

<small class="time"> 25s</small>

Roux says "real common cause facts" of OP case are: 1) 4 shots fired 2) subsequent to shots, door damaged by bat

 

<small class="time"> 19s</small>

Roux says - after prompting from Judge Masipa - that guilty of negligence in restaurant incident. So why did they contest?

FM
<small class="time"> 22s</small>

Roux: to determine the timelines we looked at the telephone data. BB

 

<small class="time"> 17s</small>

Roux going thro the defence timeline, starting with phone records to try to hammer down discrepancy over sounds

 

Roux: times correlate with evidence - second sounds were at 03:17. First sounds were before 03:15 - that's all we know.

 

<small class="time"> 17s</small>

Detailed but important - Roux seeks to show how evidence of all neighbours fits version of events re. gunshots, screams etc.

 

<small class="time"> 50s</small>

Roux says roughly 5 minute gap between gunshots and second group of "bangs" - which defence says is cricket bat on door.

 

 

FM

he's doing Carice's halp halp halp now 

 

<small class="time"> 8s</small>

Roux: the accused screamed help 3 times after realising what he’d done - compare this to evidence of neighbours. It fits.

 

this is him screaming like a woman 

 

<small class="time"> 37s</small>

Defense argues shots fired at 3:12am. Witnesses says they heard help, help, help at 3:15am. Defense says OP banged down door at 3:17an.

 

Retweeted by 
<small class="time"> 2m</small>

Defence Timeline: 3:19 OP calls Stander. 3:20 OP calls 911. 3:21 OP calls security. 3:22 Baba calls back. 3:22 Baba, Stander, Carice arrive

 

Roux: at 02:20 security passed by house of accused - can I be naughty and say why that's important? Did he hear loud arguments?

FM
<small class="time"> 20s</small>

I'll show you many many things about Dr Stipp that cannot be, says Roux, openly contemptuous of some of neighbour's evidence

 

Roux: we know that he didn't have his shirt on, he has a fair complexion, it's not possible to see him if he's on stumps.

 

Roux: he was then on his prostheses - so the first sounds had to be shots, and second sounds the cricket bat.

 

<small class="time"> 39s</small>

Again Roux showing how state evidence from neighbours can be interpreted as backing up version.

 

<small class="time"> 20s</small>

Roux says a witness who says a man was walking in the bathroom at 3:15 could only have been with prosthesis

 

FM
<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: Stipp’s claim that his call to security didn’t go through is not true. Baba reacted to the call and went to his house. BB

 

<small class="time"> 55s</small>

Roux lists times of various calls in immediate aftermath of shooting, and arrivals of doctor, guard, and friend at home.

 

<small class="time"> 6s</small>

Security Guards walked with earphone listening to music, and that's why Mr Baba never heard anything

 

there's a very good chance this ^ is true 

FM
<small class="time"> 45s</small>

Roux: Stipp sd first call didnt go thro. It did.

 

Roux: at 03:23 Dr Stipp arrived at the house...followed shortly after Baba, then Standers arrived at 03:22.

 

<small class="time"> 37s</small>

The phone records contradict the Stipps evidence. And the security responded to the call - backing up OP's timeline

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

"It slots in 100%" says Roux, describing various evidence of neighbours etc. (But concedes some of Dr Stipp's claims don't quite fit.)

 

Roux: at 03:41:58 ambulance arrived...the deceased was declared dead. Police arrived after accused had gone upstairs.

 

 

 

wee break for 15 minutes 

FM
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by moonie:

For Pengy, as she has been abandoned is on her own...

 

 

Enjoy

  just what I need fankooo   yes Sezit is halping me  over on twitter and meanwhile I'm spamming the page here 

Glad you is not alone and I like reading all the comments even if I don't always watch it on telly

Enjoy your brekkie and will call in again later

Moonie
<small class="time"> 25s</small>

Roux deals at length with Stipp neighbours evidence - much of which he needs the Judge to discount.

 

Roux: Stipp was so honest the he admitted not looking at accused's bathroom light. But he was wrong.

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: Nhlengethwa says he only switched on his lights after he called security. BB

 

<small class="time"> 57s</small>

Dr Stipp was one of the first people on the scene - a radiologist who tried to administer first aid

 

Roux: Mrs Stipp tried to support her husband, she said she moved to bigger balcony, husband refuted that she went there.

 

Roux: Stipp said lights on right of bathroom window was more intense, so when he saw lights toilet was already open.

FM
 Retweeted by 
<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: described them as screams in 2 affadavits, then comes back and it becomes severely emotional.

 

innit though 

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Judge asks whether Stipp was challenged on this addition and what is wrong with that? Roux says it was a fabrication.

 

Roux is concerned that Stipp adapted material evidence - 'that conduct of his wasn't an isolated incident'.

 

Barry's got his claws out 

 

 

<small class="time"> 2m</small>

Roux suggesting Dr Stipp may have been coaxed into changing his evidence after a lunchbreak     he'd better have proof of that 

FM
<small class="time"> 48s</small>

After lunch, accoding to Roux, Stipp reinforced his evidence to help State by calling them 'fearful and emotional'

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Defense case is that first noises were shot and "it could not have been Reeva who was screaming as she was fatally wounded"

 

<small class="time"> 2m</small>

Roux: we have Burger hearing woman scream, Johnson goes to balcony, hears woman screaming and you have Dr Stipp hearing woman

FM
<small class="time"> 19s</small>

Roux: you have the accused version that he fired the shots and then hit the door - supported by Vermeulen.

 

<small class="time"> 18s</small>

Roux: now the state must make the second sounds the gunshots, ignore the first sounds and the cricket bat.

 

Roux repeats Burger heard four shots, her musical ear couldn't make mistake. Other witnesses heard 3 bat sounds.

 

Roux: Johnson's notes, edited and edited again, show that Burger heard 4-5 shots,

FM
<small class="time"> 45s</small>

I believe that the timeline is more fitting with OP's version as far as external events are concerned.Still feel the internals are weak

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: he had to go back to toilet - his footprint is there on the door - Vermeulen says it's not his job to investigate that.

 

there does seem to be an element in SA investigations that one person does this and one person does that but no one thinks outside the box or links up their areas 

 

<small class="time"> 58s</small>

Roux: so according to state OP shot Reeva and took less than 2 minutes to scream for help, try to break door, put legs on, break down door

 

Roux: we know that Johnson, Burger, Viljoen, Nhlengethwa - the heard a man screwing and shouting help help help.

 
I just brought this to their attention 
 
 
FM
<small class="time"> 32s</small>

Roux trying to prove the unlikelihood of OP screaming 'help, help, help' BEFORE the shooting...

 

<small class="time"> 4s</small>

Roux: it's common cause that he fired on stumps - it makes perfect sense...there's no mosaic crumbling, no dropping of baton.

 

<small class="time"> 2m</small>

Roux: … those screams were directed at someone inside the house, not for help outside the house.

 

 

so basically OP was anxious the whole time he was in the house - having shot her I can believe that but anxious for Reeva or for what would happen to him is the big question 

FM
<small class="time"> 51s</small>

I really cant see Masipa choosing one set on neighbor evidence over the other.I believe they cancel each other out.Definite reasonable doubt

 

 

<small class="time"> 45s</small>

Ah yes... The baton of truth. The race of murder acquittal cannot be completed without the baton of truth.

 

<small class="time"> 45s</small>

Roux now explaining why he didnt call certain witnesses.

 

<small class="time"> 49s</small>

But only reasonable doubt on killing REEVA - NOT the other competent charges.

 

 Retweeted by 
<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Yes Barry. Explain why you didn't call witnesses to show that Oscar screams like a woman. He blames the State for holding back witnesses.

 

<small class="time"> 33s</small>

Roux questions why the State didn't call these neighbours, says it was because they would have destroyed their case

 

<small class="time"> 21s</small>

Roux believes no need to have called experts on the screaming as they had next door neighbours. "They were there"

 

FM

Add Reply

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