Trial Discussion Thread #31

[Cherwell]

There has been some discussion implying that married couples cannot be classed as "independent" witnesses.

My interpretation of an "independent witness" is someone who has no connection with the defendant, the victim, or anyone else involved with the case.

 

[Jake18]

Hello Everyone! I have been watching and listening with interest to all the various educated guesses with regard to this trial.

Just a thought .... Suppose there was quite a lot of blood that happened to fill up the toilet (under 2 gallons) Is there not then a type of siphon effect that lowers the water in the toilet?
See below
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/toilet/toilet.html

Example of A Simple Siphon
Siphoning is used in transporting a fluid from a reservoir of higher elevation to one of lower elevation. Bernoulli’s equation (shown below) can help explain this type of fluid transport.
The siphon for a toilet is an upside down "U" shaped tube that connects the bowl (higher reservoir) to the sewer/cespool (lower reservoir).
If fluid (anything under approximately 2 gallons) is added to the toilet bowl itself, notice that the water level does not change. The extra fluid will cause the water level in the bowl to rise slightly for a moment, but then that extra water overflows into the siphon tube, passes through the tube, and out of the system (but this does not cause the toilet to flush).
When the toilet is flushed, 2 gallons of water rush quickly through the bowl, causing the siphon tube to fill up completely, resulting in a change in pressure (lower pressure inside the tube ahead of the flowing water, and higher pressure in the water (at the inlet of the siphon) in the bowl. Once all the water has passed through the tube, air enters and interrupts the siphoning process (causing the gurgle you hear after you flush). Then water in the bowl is replenished when the inlet valve in the tank allows more water to come in through the supply line.

BBM

So, in the interests of the forum I have just poured 4 litres of water down the toilet. Granted, water is less viscous than blood but 4 litres is a generous amount. This experiment was carried out in a carefully controlled environment otherwise known as the kids' bathroom so I could blame them if something went wrong. Anyway, the water level didn't rise at all. To ascertain this i used specially calibrated measuring instruments, otherwise known as my eyes.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

The above is the link CTC kindly provided and below is a quote from it which seems to say that 'reasonably' does indeed play a part when it comes to the murder charge vs putative self defence.

'In a case where the state has proven that an accused had shot and killed another person in his house in the absence of an attack on his life or property, it would be difficult to escape conviction for murder unless the accused is found to have acted in putative self-defence. Where an accused is found to have genuinely believed that his life was in danger and that he was using reasonable means to avert an attack on himself or his property, he may escape conviction for murder on the grounds that he lacked the requisite intention.'

Sorry, let me give you this link to read in conjunction with this. The SCA judgement out two Monday's back re: putative self defence.

It might put the 'subjective' bit of Oscar's perceived threat into perspective.

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2014/sca2014-052.pdf

(Even with this, Oscar hasn't done enough at this stage to rely on putative self defense IMHO - his psychologist's evidence will be KEY to his state of mind etc in terms of fear, his reaction etc. However, here's hoping the PT's head shrinker knocks all this nonsense out of the park. I still believe he's going down for murder - Dolus Eventualis at least.)

 

[Bazinga]

It seems like common sense to me that a closer witness would be a better ear witness. I don't understand your problem. If the State could have found close neighbors I imagine they would have preferred them to somebody 180 meters away. And I am sure they would have preferred witnesses who were questioned by police soon after the event, rather than weeks later after all the news and hype etc had been broadcast? Common sense? But they are better than nothing. (at a pinch)

The State chose to not call the other neighbors, so I have no idea what their full testimony might have been. Roux went through some names and stated in court that they had said in sworn statement that they DID NOT hear a woman scream. Nel made no objection. I guess their testimony would NOT have helped to Prosecution or else Nel would have called them?

Those neighbours wouldn't help the prosecution OR the defence given both have screams (prosecution has Reeva screaming, Defence has Oscar screaming). The only conclusion would be that those neighbours slept through any noise (quite possible) or had doors and windows closed, better glazing, poorer hearing, might have been affected by a sleeping tablet or alcohol, many possibilities.

 

[Jake18]

What do you make of his absolute refusal to admit having his finger on the trigger in the Tasha's incident? Do you think it's just another example of refusing to accept responsibility or more of an attempt to brazen it out with an eye to having no criminal convictions at the end of all this because of his career? Maybe he is so terrified at the thought of prison that he won't admit to anything that might result in a prison sentence, albeit a brief one? Or is he just stupid?

Whatever the reason, I doubt anyone could convincingly argue that his refusal to budge one inch cast him in a good light.

I think he genuinely thinks he can come out of this with his image unaffected. IMO his refusal to admit to even *advertiser censored* viewing suggests he's still trying to protect his "brand", not realising that it's long lost.

 

[Jake18]

Not two sets of bat blows. One set of blows, then the gun shots, then the bat used to pry open the panels.

Especially cos the bat was already there.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

So, in the interests of the forum I have just poured 4 litres of water down the toilet. Granted, water is less viscous than blood but 4 litres is a generous amount. This experiment was carried out in a carefully controlled environment otherwise known as the kids' bathroom so I could blame them if something went wrong. Anyway, the water level didn't rise at all. To ascertain this i used specially calibrated measuring instruments, otherwise known as my eyes.

Your eyes.... :floorlaugh:

I think I'm going to watch Dixon's cross examination again.

 

[lithgow1]

Sorry, let me give you this link to read in conjunction with this. The SCA judgement out two Monday's back re: putative self defence.

It might put the 'subjective' bit of Oscar's perceived threat into perspective.

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2014/sca2014-052.pdf

(Even with this, Oscar hasn't done enough at this stage to rely on putative self defense IMHO - his psychologist's evidence will be KEY to his state of mind etc in terms of fear, his reaction etc. However, here's hoping the PT's head shrinker knocks all this nonsense out of the park. I still believe he's going down for murder - Dolus Eventualis at least.)

Thanks again. I'll go have a read of it now - that other article was excellent.

Don't know about you or anyone else but I am dreading the psychologist's testimony. Not because I fear it will 'help' OP but because I can already smell the jargon. Having said that, the cross may be good.

As others have said, including his prosecutor, why would a man who claims to feel so vulnerable go towards the danger, in the dark, when he had other options? No sensible reason at all for such actions. He himself said he's the kind to confront danger - and then scream like some Hammer horror heroine when danger gives him a sideways glance.

 

[Val1]

The thing is - for purposes of a trial, if the defense and prosecution "agree that x" then that really is the end of the matter. When both sides make those stipulations, they are accepted as uncontested matters, and there is no issue for the trier of fact to decide.

Sure, they might both be mistaken, but the stipulations operate as established facts for purposes of the trial.

bbm - Wouldn't that change if Nel wants to and gets to re-open his direct after reviewing possible new evidence that the defense may have introduced during their direct?

 

[Jake18]

Thank you CTC, I wasn't sure about that, I recall now about them saying they thought closer neighbours would have come forward. I remember thinking the same too... I couldn't blame people for not wanting to get involved in this nightmare.

As it was the Burger/Johnsons had their phone number televised and I understand they've been through a rough time, all because they've tried to do the right thing. Very sad.

I thought the reading out of the phone number was appalling - it seemed like a blatant intimidatory tactic to me.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Copied from Lisa's amazing blog. http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/oscar-trial-day-23-dixon/

Nel asks him if he is a sound expert. His answer is “I would hope that my evidence that I present is sound."

Nel wants to know what expert skills he used to do this. Dixon says the expertise used was reconstructing a situation. His part of the test was to wield the bat to produce the sound that other people were recording.

Nel asks if his analysis of visibility in the dark required any expert skill. Dixon says that the instruments he used were his eyes

Nel recaps… so for the cricket bat test you just hit the door with a bat. And for the light test, you just looked with your eyes. Dixon agrees.

Dixon says there were bits of notes and paper sent over the course of a year. Nel points out that he’s reading from bits of paper in front of him today. Dixon says these are his notes to remind him of details. Nel tells him that if he had a proper report before court, then notes would not be necessary.

Dixon says, on his computer he just hit the repeat button to hear what rapid succession would sound like.


I had to stop. You can't dream this stuff up. The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Kaly99]

It would have been a 'win' for the defense if they weren't left with over 15 minutes +- in which Oscar would have then just screamed and ran around with Reeva STILL breathing in the bathroom and finally dying some 20 minutes later only.
In context of the state's argument that she died after the 3.17 shots, including the pathologists report re: death after the head wound, the state won that round.

The DT have had their pathologist on already. The ship in which Reeva lived for +- 20 minutes after the final shot has sailed for the DT.

My timelines are not accurate by any stretch. But having Reeva shot earlier, and living so long after, all whilst Oscar is running around screeching and doing very little else is beyond the realms of the possible.

If it were possible, Prof Botha - the DT's second choice forensic pathologist would have testified to it convincingly.

I would imagine?

But that's just me.

I think the context in which that part of Dr. Stipp's testimony was being examined, though, was in terms of whether or not the cricket bat and the shots could be confused at all. At that stage OP hadn't testified that Reeva was still breathing at the time he broke the door down, so that wasn't something to take into consideration. The state had argued that Dr. Stipp was familiar with guns, the implication being that he couldn't possibly have confused them - yet at that moment, he admitted he could have.

The defence case depends on the first set of bangs being the gunshots; regardless of whatever problems there might be with the timing, that's what their case relies on. So to have one of the state witnesses essentially admit that he might have mistaken bat sounds for shots was an absolutely crucial moment for them.

 

[patCee]

Thanks again. I'll go have a read of it now - that other article was excellent.

Don't know about you or anyone else but I am dreading the psychologist's testimony. Not because I fear it will 'help' OP but because I can already smell the jargon. Having said that, the cross may be good.

As others have said, including his prosecutor, why would a man who claims to feel so vulnerable go towards the danger, in the dark, when he had other options? No sensible reason at all for such actions. He himself said he's the kind to confront danger - and then scream like some Hammer horror heroine when danger gives him a sideways glance.

Perhaps because he grew up imbued with the feelings of 'I can'. He didn't learn to say 'I won't' MOO

 

[Freya1977]

Let me try.


1. The Tooth Fairy was inebriated and she fell into that plate. She also lost her bag of coins.

2. It was the stork M'lady. Instead of dropping a baby, it dropped a pair of woman's jeans.

3. In Oscar's world he is the only one that matters. As long as he wasn't hurt, everything WAS fine.

4. That bail hearing affidavit - that was ALL Barry's fault. He stuffed it up by leaving things out.

How did I do?

Lol - this explains everything! Thank you very much

 

[Val1]

LOL - ask prosecution witnesses if this is what they heard? Because they would say "no" - safer to just give the info to the judge and let her decide whether the witnesses could have been mistaken

How would the judge know what the witnesses heard if they weren't asked to compare what they recall and what is being put forth?

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

bbm - Wouldn't that change if Nel wants to and gets to re-open his direct after reviewing possible new evidence that the defense may have introduced during their direct?

What Minor4th is referring to is what we call "Common Cause".

However, 'should' a judge (at her discretion) entertain an application from the state to re-open, ANY evidence offered by the defense that the state want to test 'can' be re-examined; because it WILL be new evidence. There will also have been no way that the state could have presented it earlier as they were genuinely not aware that it existed. (This can be done in varying circumstances rather within trials, simply because the Defense enjoy the 'right of silence' throughout. This results in them being able to 'spring' things into evidence (via experts or witnesses) that the state are entitled to explore and rebut.)

The state will re-open after the DT have pulled out their psychologist. I was certain Gerrie alluded to re-opening earlier when Dixon started his waffling. When Gerrie asked for the early break to read the 'DT reports'.............

 

[lithgow1]

Copied from Lisa's amazing blog. http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/oscar-trial-day-23-dixon/

Nel asks him if he is a sound expert. His answer is “I would hope that my evidence that I present is sound."

Nel wants to know what expert skills he used to do this. Dixon says the expertise used was reconstructing a situation. His part of the test was to wield the bat to produce the sound that other people were recording.

Nel asks if his analysis of visibility in the dark required any expert skill. Dixon says that the instruments he used were his eyes

Nel recaps… so for the cricket bat test you just hit the door with a bat. And for the light test, you just looked with your eyes. Dixon agrees.

Dixon says there were bits of notes and paper sent over the course of a year. Nel points out that he’s reading from bits of paper in front of him today. Dixon says these are his notes to remind him of details. Nel tells him that if he had a proper report before court, then notes would not be necessary.

Dixon says, on his computer he just hit the repeat button to hear what rapid succession would sound like.


I had to stop. You can't dream this stuff up. The gift that keeps on giving.

My 'favourite' part of the hapless Mr Dixon's testimony was when he was being asked by Nel what all his bits of paper were and, though a bit flustered, he was explaining that they were notes and info such as the door's dimensions etc and then added that they were 'all nicely typed'. That was funny.

 

[Freya1977]

You are like me.

These events really aren't that complicated. Oscar has muddied the waters in his attempt to escape any form of punishment, yes; but strip away his lies and add-ons, and one is left with a relatively simple story.

Things are exactly what they seem.

That's the conclusion I've come to also

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irisha View Post
How did the intruder/s get in the window with no ladder? A thief stole the ladder?

There were ladders

Yes there were, too bad his friend left them under the wrong windows eh?

 

[Freya1977]

Your eyes.... :floorlaugh:

I think I'm going to watch Dixon's cross examination again.

How can you punish yourself like that? Oh... It's excruciating!