Der Prozess Oscar Pistorius und der Tod von Reeva Steenkamp

12.54 Uhr: Mittagspause.
12.52 Uhr: "Ich denke, Sie haben Ihren Punkt dargelegt", sagt Richterin Masipa trocken, als Roux immer wieder darlegt, dass er Experte Saayman nicht diskreditieren wolle - aber man dessen Aussagen differenziert sehen müsse.

I just had to take a break from Roux and I found this little gem from Professor James Grant given today. He said that Roux would be attempting to construct a timeline which would show somehow that the State’s version cannot be true and he was looking forward to that because the relative times at which people heard calls hasn’t been so significant for him. “Murder doesn’t require that you kill somebody at 3.17. It’s still murder if it’s 3.18 or 3.16”. He said that OP not being clear what his defence is damning.

When asked what the most powerful and damaging piece of evidence was he said the neighbours who heard a woman scream followed by shots You can, as Roux did, attack that evidence and raise doubt, even reasonable doubt about that evidence. They might have been mistaken. Their timeframes might be slightly off, but our law operates in a way it takes the combined effect of all of that evidence together.” He mentions the mosaic mentioned by Nel. “But then you have 4 independent parties claiming that they heard a woman scream at night followed by shots. Now that carries a tremendous amount of weight”.

When asked, “If you were the judge sitting hearing all this evidence, what would judgment possibly have been?” He replied, “I remain undecided because I want to see and hear all of the evidence again, but I am prepared to say that I’m leaning towards the fact that the chances are of a court recognising any reasonable doubt in Oscar’s favour are probably fading, and its entirely possible that the court might find him guilty on the evidence presented”.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/d8e441804505c9c4b78eb7a5ad025b24/Pistorius-may-be-found-guilty:-Expert-20140808

“Murder doesn’t require that you kill somebody at 3.17. It’s still murder if it’s 3.18 or 3.16”. He said that OP not being clear what his defence is damning.
You can, as Roux did, attack that evidence and raise doubt, even reasonable doubt about that evidence. They might have been mistaken. Their timeframes might be slightly off, but our law operates in a way it takes the combined effect of all of that evidence together.” He mentions the mosaic mentioned by Nel. “But then you have 4 independent parties claiming that they heard a woman scream at night followed by shots. Now that carries a tremendous amount of weight”.