Thanks for posting this link:
Most interesting moment, for myself, the legal experts suggesting that Dr and Mrs Stipp's testimony has more relevance than the Stander's as witnesses.
oscar trial legal panel 13 - YouTube
Oscar Channel discussion with legal experts Professor Grant, Attorney Clifford Alexander and Judge Greenland:
Panelist Judge Greenland suggests that the Stander’s (Johan Stander and his recently married daughter Carice Viljeon né Stander) could be seen as good witnesses for the defense argument, if only for the lay-public. Judge Greenland thinks their testimony might show Pistorius as seemingly remorseful and distraught in his post-shooting state, suggesting an accidental killing.
However other panelists suggest that Pistorius' attitde may still show intentional murder and panel discuss how Stander's statements may be actually irrelevant to the court as ‘inadmissible evidence’ or ‘subconscious bias'*.
3.49 min:
Most interesting moment, for myself, the legal experts suggesting that Dr and Mrs Stipp's testimony has more relevance than the Stander's as witnesses.
oscar trial legal panel 13 - YouTube
Oscar Channel discussion with legal experts Professor Grant, Attorney Clifford Alexander and Judge Greenland:
Panelist Judge Greenland suggests that the Stander’s (Johan Stander and his recently married daughter Carice Viljeon né Stander) could be seen as good witnesses for the defense argument, if only for the lay-public. Judge Greenland thinks their testimony might show Pistorius as seemingly remorseful and distraught in his post-shooting state, suggesting an accidental killing.
However other panelists suggest that Pistorius' attitde may still show intentional murder and panel discuss how Stander's statements may be actually irrelevant to the court as ‘inadmissible evidence’ or ‘subconscious bias'*.
3.49 min:
Professor Grant and Attorney Alexander suggest that the Stander’s recounting of Pistorius’ statements and manner does not necessarily help legal defense.
Oscar Trial99 Channel Journalist: …previously ‘inconsistent statements’ that should not be allowed, but he used the words: “I made a mistake.” Now, he [Johan Stander] was carefully grilled on that one, why was that significant for Gerrie Nel, to pick up on that point?
Professor Grant: I think, what he was drawing attention to being referred to, is that the witness is drawing an inference. That’s one possible interpretation and that’s my interpretation. And, it’s not allowed. Witnesses are there, ordinarily lay-witnesses, and are there to testify about the raw data, the information, not to be drawing inferences - that’s the court’s jurisdiction. Alternatively, when you have experts, experts are allowed to venture into that domain. So, it was really picking him up on the fact that he was showing and Nel was showing, that this witness is actually not giving you the raw information [to the] Judge and the assessors. This witness is actually manipulating, even at a subconscious level, it might have been an entirely honest mistake. But this witness is manipulating the raw data as he’s presenting it to you. Um, I think that’s the best interpretation on that basis.
Judge Christopher Greenland: I think in simple terms, it’s the Stander’s versus the Stipp's [confirmation from the panelist’s now about right name] on the events immediately after the shooting and the issue that then arises is: who of these two sets of witnesses are more reliable? And, obviously witnesses who can be described and can be categorized as independent, are more reliable. And, what Gerrie Nel did at a stroke, and I think masterfully, was show that, that witness [Stander] is/was suffering from, at least, ‘subconscious bias’. Because of the way, she than changed her evidence, included –
Interjection by Oscar Trial journalist: - it was he, it was the father -
Judge Greenland: - he included, this, extra bit, in order to favor Oscar. People do that when they are being honest but they are not independent. They suffer from what’s called ‘subconscious bias’* and therefore they are less reliable. So, I think Gerrie will be able to argue that they are not as independent as the competing witness.
Journalist: So it was a critical mistake there. I am sure for the defense they would have been a little disheartened by that particular moment.
Judge Greenland: Gerrie scored a good point there.