Er hat die Türe zuschlagen hören, die Spülung jedoch nicht, obwohl er da schon wesentlich näher bei der Toilette war? Andererseits soll er dann wieder was wie das "Verschieben von Holz"vernommen haben, nicht aber dass die Türe zugeschlossen wurde?
Natürlich ist das alles völlig absurd. Er hat ja in der Kautionsverhandlung nicht mal den Auslöser des Dramas das Öffnen des Fensters, das ihn so erschreckt und sofort an Einbrecher denken liess angegeben!
Hier einen kleinen Ausschnitt darüber aus dem Kreuzverhör:
Nel tells him that it was not expected to be exhaustive, but they do expect him to say what he heard.
Nel is absolutely correct here. If Oscar is going to claim that his immediate terror was caused by hearing the window opening, and that terror lead to him killing a person, it makes no sense whatsoever that he didn’t specifically say that he heard the window open in that statement. Oscar will not convince the court on this one.
So Oscar then says, he stated in his bail affidavit that after he heard the noise and went in to the bathroom, he saw the window open and that confirmed what he heard.
But Nel calls him out on this and says he’s tailoring again. Just a few minutes ago Oscar said that he heard the window open while in the bedroom and he had no doubt at all that he knew what he heard. And when pressed on why he didn’t report it that way for his bail, he is now trying to say that seeing the window open confirmed it for him. They are two different things and it really looks terrible for him when he does this.
I know some people believe that he’s just under duress, which I’m sure he is, and making mistakes because of that. But if you look at this pattern throughout the last 5 days on the stand, it is extremely clear exactly what he’s doing. He’s not telling the truth so he is constantly in a position to make things fit. He twists and changes things when the questions get difficult. At other times he has an amazingly detailed memory.http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/oscar-trial-day-21-oscar/