Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[crasshopper]

No, Oscar was never asked about this or said anything about it. I imagine Nel didn't ask him about it because he could have dismissed it as happening at an earlier date. Far better to leave it as an unanswered question in the judge's mind. It's probably the same with the jeans found outside. Who knows what Oscar would have said about these? But, he had 15 months to figure out a plausible explanation, so probably best to leave it unanswered.

I'm sure Gerrie will weave this into his closing narrative as signs of a struggle, intimidation or something untoward happening before the shots were fired.

Was his housekeeper ever on the witness list? If willing, she could have easily testified as to whether this damage was preexisting.

A forensic expert should also be able closely approximate the width of the object that caused that dent. Perhaps the same width as a cricket bat...

ITA it also works to leave it as a glaring unanswered question in the Judge& assessors' minds.

 

[Lyra500]

As you might have noticed I have been lurking for almost the whole trial even though I have followed this case since the beginning. But it is Minor whose posts I remember most but I have never challenged them only because she is a verified attorney - until now. My mother died recently so I have been grieving. Therefore, I have just lurked and watched the trial. But some of the posts Minor has been making seem illogical to me. But I am not a lawyer. I have a background in psychology but have not sought to be verified. Therefore, I am more interested in the psychological aspects of this case. That is where I am coming from rather than a legal point of view.

Hello Estelle.

I have missed your posts. Although I am a relative newbie here I had already grown to really appreciate your contributions.

I am so sorry to read the reason for your absence - please accept my condolences.

 

[crowmarsh]

Well, therein lies the force of subjective interpretation - it sounded "blood curdling" to me. What exactly is the definition of blood curdling anyway?

Yes, I agree that it was partly for the purpose of hearing a high pitched scream, but I think it was also intended to give the judge an idea of just what was meant by "loud crying" - those demonstrations by the witnesses were informative IMO because those sounds could definitely be described as wails or screams or "crying out." It was definitely not just ordinary "crying."

Of course Roux is not going to ask the state's witnesses to demonstrate a scream or cry - Nel could have asked if he wanted to get it on the record what the screams sounded like to his witnesses.

I don't think the judge "saw through it" because what is there to see through? Nothing IMO - they were not pretending to scream just like Oscar. They were describing (in their own voices) what it sounded like.

I think he made them both appear ridiculous The judge looked incredulous and the steenkamp camp were chuckling

 

[Giles]

Was his housekeeper ever on the witness list? If willing, she could have easily testified as to whether this damage was preexisting.

A forensic expert should also be able closely approximate the width of the object that caused that dent. Perhaps the same width as a cricket bat...

ITA it also works to leave it as a glaring unanswered question in the Judge& assessors' minds.

You would think a forensic expert could have shed some light on the damage to the metal plate, wouldn't you? However, Vermeulen did examine it and wasn't able to determine what caused it. I reckon Nel will suggest it was caused by OP wielding the cricket bat in a rage, trying to frighten poor Reeva in the toilet.

 

[Cymbaline]

That's the pic I was wondering about... noone has made any reference to those magazines being where they are or any blood evidence or fragments they may have contained(perhaps even help messages scrawled in them), that seems very odd to me what with all the talk about tampering, moving the body, bloody stumps/prosthetics wiping the wall, etc.

Here is the same picture with a filter.

Look at this picture.

Same picture with a filter.

Yes!!! I agree about the help message. Reeva was heard screaming by the Stipps. I'm going to assume that she was multi tasking while she was screaming. How long does it take to write the word help?


Another thing is the head wound. Have you seen the picture that Juror 13 has on her site? If that damage is from one shot, why aren't the pieces of her skull and brain in the toilet room. Where are they? It's a huge wound.

That bullet fragment that was found in the bloody toilet is also inconsistent with OP's versions.


JMO

 

[Emz73]

I think Dixon said his stumps are different lengths.

JMO

To be fair, OP does look top heavy on those stumps so I imagine they are difficult to walk on. Why on earth wouldn't he put his legs on???
It takes seconds he said!!

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/woman-hit-in-home-by-mystery-bullet-1.1461223#.U2pwhihbcdU

The link describes an inciden in Jan. 2013 that Wollie Wolmarans, the DT ballistics expert, weighed in on. A woman was inside her home and was injured by a bullet coming through her roof. Wolmarans said the bullet must have been shot from a height and not by someone outside shooting into the air. I hope Nel asks Wollie if OP could have injured an innocent person outside at the time OP shot through DF's sunroof.

I am sure he will. Mangena stated during his time on the stand that shooting a bullet into the air could kill.

I hope Nel wouldn't pass up an opportunity like that.

Interestingly today I have been reading a court case where Woolmaran's(sp?) expertise was up against Mangena's and Mangena won the day. Woolmaran's evidence was not thought to have been adequate to explain the bullet wounds in some poor deceased lady's neck. Mangena seems to have a good reputation.

 

[Nausicaa]

But won't the anaethesist's testimony be geared towards defending OP's version - he or she will testify on the possibility that she did eat around 7pm? Otherwise I don't see why they would call one - though it does suggest the stomach contents has them concerned.

[...]

Well, for a meal to remain undigested in the stomach for some seven hours is highly abnormal but perhaps not unknown to medical science if the eater was subject during the intervening period to violent emotion.

Go for it Nel!

 

[sorrell skye]

I think someone has mentioned this but it's worth repeating in relation to the last couple of days. It's my understanding I can't quote people from other forums (and rightly so) so I'm going to paraphrase:

According to a Professor James Grant, the Standers' evidence relating to Pistorius' state of anguish is inadmissable because it is 'evidence of a previous consistent statement'. Apparantly, had Nel cross-examined on this it would have become admissable so he didn't, leaving it to the judge to 'ignore them'. Any legal minds know much about this aspect? TIA

Just added - the other poster has further clarified by saying that Roux was likely wanting Nel to cross-examine on this to make it admissable but he didn't take the bait, leaving Roux in the lurch both in terms of admitting the evidence and having no other witnesses lined up. Was also suggested that this whole issue was why Nel and M'lady wanted to see each other post-proceedings.

This topic was discussed by the legal panel on the Oscar Trial Channel. It was actually OP's statement "I thought she [Reeva] was an intruder", and not their observation that OP was in distress, that was considered to be inadmissible evidence.

Judge Greenland and Professor Grant both explained that the Standers' testimony regarding Oscar's statement "I shot Reeva. I thought she was an intruder" is inadmissible because it is testimony/evidence of a previous consistent statement, but it is not probative evidence.

According to Prof Grant, testimony/evidence of a previous consistent statement is meaningless, because it doesn't establish that the statement is factual or true, but rather is only repetition of OP's statement "I thought she [Reeva] was an intruder".

It was agreed by the legal panel that the probative value of that portion of testimony is null. It may have an effect on the public's perception of OP's alleged guilt or innocence, but the Court will consider it to have little to no value and can't use it as evidence.

oscar trial legal panel 13 - YouTube

 

[Cymbaline]

Was his housekeeper ever on the witness list? If willing, she could have easily testified as to whether this damage was preexisting.

A forensic expert should also be able closely approximate the width of the object that caused that dent. Perhaps the same width as a cricket bat...

ITA it also works to leave it as a glaring unanswered question in the Judge& assessors' minds.

Yes, Frank is listed as a witness in the indictment. Page 9

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/redactor-docs/Oscar+indictment.pdf



JMO

 

[Giles]

To be fair, OP does look top heavy on those stumps so I imagine they are difficult to walk on. Why on earth wouldn't he put his legs on???
It takes seconds he said!!

In fairness to OP. If he did believe an intruder had entered his bathroom, it's not as if he can call a 'time out' to put his prostheses on. I think going for the gun would be a reasonable thing to do.

Not checking on Reeva however...

 

[sleuth-d-]

This makes me suspect that Frank did indeed hear the whole thing but is too frightened to testify because he knows he will never work again and he knows how many friends in high places OP has (or should I being saying 'had' given the direction of travel?)

He has therefore taken the only way out he can think of which is to claim he slept through the whole thing.

Given he was awake and fully dressed outside the house before Carice and Papa Stander arrived, it seems highly unlikely slept through and heard nothing.

final questions from oldwage to j stander...
who was there at the time of your arrival:
js: security and frank.
oldwage: so there was a security guard, from the estate, is it?


[frank is wiped out by oldwage]


Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 5 may 2014, Session 1 / 1:20:20

 

[Giles]

This topic was discussed by the legal panel on the Oscar Trial Channel. It was actually OP's statement "I thought she [Reeva] was an intruder", and not their observation that OP was in distress, that was considered to be inadmissible evidence.

Judge Greenland and Professor Grant both explained that the Standers' testimony regarding Oscar's statement "I shot Reeva. I thought she was an intruder" is inadmissible because it is testimony/evidence of a previous consistent statement, but it is not probative evidence.

According to Prof Grant, testimony/evidence of a previous consistent statement is meaningless, because it doesn't establish that the statement is factual or true, but rather is only repetition of OP's statement "I thought she [Reeva] was an intruder".

It was agreed by the legal panel that the probative value of that portion of testimony is null. It may have an effect on the public's perception of OP's alleged guilt or innocence, but the Court will consider it to have little to no value and can't use it as evidence.

oscar trial legal panel 13 - YouTube

Yes, I thought this was really interesting. There was some debate as to whether Nel should have objected or whether he would mention it in Chambers at some point.

I find Judge Greenland to be fascinating to listen to. He has tremendous clarity of thought and a wealth of knowledge and experience to draw on.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Am I right that the only court day sister aimee has missed during the trial was the day when cs admitted that she and sister aimee "stole" reevas handbag

interesting. i just love coincidences.

 

[Cymbaline]

To be fair, OP does look top heavy on those stumps so I imagine they are difficult to walk on. Why on earth wouldn't he put his legs on???
It takes seconds he said!!

One question I wish Nel asked OP. How many times have you fired a gun on your stumps? Was this OP's first time? Has he ever been at the firing range and taken off his prosthetics?


JMO

 

[BritsKate]

But won't the anaethesist's testimony be geared towards defending OP's version - he or she will testify on the possibility that she did eat around 7pm? Otherwise I don't see why they would call one - though it does suggest the stomach contents has them concerned.

Can you or anyone see how they'll be done with the rest of the defence witnesses by Tuesday arvo? You'd think Nel will want to spend much more time than he did with the last few so it makes me wonder how they'll fit them in then they'd still need to do something with the audio (bat vs shots and screams - distance, pitch etc) and the psych stuff.

Responded to wrong post of your's BritsKate and now don't know how to fix that. But I'm sure you'll work out which I was referring to.

Indeed, he'll back up Oscar's claim. (I was just remarking how ludicrous it is for OP to be so insistent she couldn't have gone downstairs when he was sleeping.) To me, it makes it seem the defence are really worried about the time because of the argument heard. I believe it's that argument escalating that proves premeditation.

The defence seems willing to risk a lot to disprove an argument or Reeva screaming. We're roughly halfway done with witnesses for the defence - I predict Wednesday or Thursday. Roux said Tuesday but he also stated he couldn't guarantee it. Much of it, as you said, depends on how long Nel crosses. And I think you're right, he'll take longer with the scientific testimonies.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[crowmarsh]

Well he was "waddling" towards a potentially armed intruder so he must feel pretty big, strong and threatening to go into that corridor pitch black haha.

He is 5ft 1 inch on his stumps taller than many so called able bodied folks and I simply do not believe that he is that unsteady on his stumps, I have worked with people who have disabilities and they have an amazing capacity to adapt to their handicap particularly those who suffered their handicap early in life

 

[Feynman]

I would love hard science.

Would love to hear how hard science works for OP's story. Right now, I don't see hard science being argued at all for OP's version other than emotive arguments (e.g. you aren't in his shoes, he is scared coz SA is paranoid of intruders, he's on stumps and vulnerable, he loved Reeva and Reeva loved him too, it's Nel's question that made OP write different versions of events, hear how he cries - he is so genuine, he screams like a woman, etc).

In fact, if we look at the hard science of this case, it looks like all the "hard science" experts agree with PT case. What experts have DT come up with?! Dixon?

I was referring to habits of mind - not any particular application of the hard sciences to this case - and how "common sense" can mislead.

 

[Val1]

You are right.


Two spots on the video.

21:15

OP: Another officer asked if there was any one else in the home. I motioned to him that there wasn't. He went up stair. At times I couldn't stand, I would just sit there.


28:28

OP: At that stage Col. Van Rensburg said because I was the only person in the house at the time, they were going to arrest me. I walked with Mr. Labuschagne to the vehicle.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbz64-Ie0BM

Just waiting for someone to make the suggestion that OP, out of the goodness of his welcome wagon heart and god fearing soul, must've been covering for the mia Frank... and that's why OP is soooo insistent that he is innocent of all charges.:facepalm:

 

[crowmarsh]

His silence will not be lost on the judge....

I hope you are right it seems bizarre to not mention him at all during both exam and x exam