Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[Hope4More]

Huge hearts can make good sleuths - if in doubt, take a few minutes to re-read Chesterton's The Secret of Father Brown. YOu can find the whole series of the saintly detective's adventures on the same site if by any chance you don't know them already.

A reader......

 

[TorisMom003]

I think we're good to sleuth witnesses but I'm unsure about professionals involved with the defence.

Lore Hartzenberg's main field is educational psychology. She also works with children/adolescents, their related traumas, child molestation and, chiefly, cross-cultural issues.

I've found one publication:
http://books.google.ie/books/about/A_Cross_cultural_Counselling_Programme_f.html?id=jMqtngEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

There's also a research paper but it's old. Cross-cultural counselling is the focus of the study.

Odd choice for OP, I think.

Very odd IMO as well. I wonder if she is seeing any other patients since she seems to spend quite a bit of time in court. She also has a Facebook.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Social Worker, Yvette Van Schalkwyk: A Question of Professional Ethics

*In case anyone missed it, M'Lady was a social worker for years before she went to law school.
** I apologize in advance for anything I say in the following opinion that someone may take personally.
*** While I'm not always right, I ALWAYS have an opinion. Ha!


I know and have worked professionally with a large number of social workers in health care, schools, courts, etc., over the past 20 years. I have great respect for them and the work they do, especially those who engage in continual personal counseling as a pre-requisite for their jobs. Those who don't often struggle with boundary and codependency issues which leak into their work.

People in direct helping professions care. It's what they do, it's who they are, which is both the good news and the bad news. It's a wonderful thing to be a truly caring person, it brings amazing things to a world that sorely needs amazing things. At the same time, in order to care "carers" have to have something/someone to "care" about. As a result, they often project a presumption of "need" onto almost everyone in almost every situation. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't.

I believe Mrs. Van Schalkwyk's personal caring is the foundation of her work as a social worker, as well as the filter through which she perceives and interprets people and situations, in all areas of her life. Through that filter she interacted professionally with OP. Personally, she felt strongly enough about her perceptions to come forward on his behalf, believing that what she perceived about him was, objectively speaking, true. In fact, perceptions and feelings are highly subjective and that's where the waters get muddy. It's one thing to bring personal biases to one's job. It's another to come forward and testify in court under false pretenses.

That Yvette Van Schalkwyk came forward was, no doubt, manna from heaven for Roux. Obviously, in order for her personal testimony to be heard, he had to cast her in her professional role. (Had she come forward and offered to testify as someone who briefly knew OP and had personal feelings to share, I imagine he would have thanked her and sent her away.) In agreeing to testify in her professional role, I believe that she had a responsibility to strictly adhere to the bounds of what was in her written reports. She admitted to Nel, however, that none of it was. Thus, from a professional ethical point-of-view, she had no business being there. Yet, she was. Her overwhelming sense of "care" and her blurred sense of professional responsibility drove her forward.

The difficulty that many involved in direct helping professions struggle with is distinguishing the principle of "care-centered ethics" from "caring" within the boundaries set in the Codes of Ethics of their professions. Many I have known have often crossed boundaries and they're proud of it. They willingly admit that their personal "caring" trumps all else. They believe doing so is a noble and admirable quality. IMHO it's not. A great deal of damage can be done in the name of compassion. That's why Codes of Ethics were created by professions in the first place.

While well-meaning, in my opinion, Yvette Van Schalkwyk inadvertently became a role model for the worst stereotypes of those in direct helping professions. My assessment begins with her being "well-meaning" and goes downhill from there.

If Mrs. Van Schalkwyk came forward to Roux with the approval of her superiors, I seriously question their judgement and think they should be fired. If Mrs. Van Schalkwyk didn't get their approval, she needs to be fired - with the parting recommendation that she engage in regular counseling if she plans to stay in the profession.

Again, my apologies to anyone who may be offended by my opinion and/or how I worded it.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Without looking, I bet Lore is female.

The name sounds german and will be female.
I thought, it is the lady with platin hair and glasses, always sitting near the family in court. The day, OP described his act in the bathroom/toilet, the lady cried with the whole family.

 

[steveml]

Overruled, Mr steveml. :gavel:

That Pistorius has supporters is undeniable. I believe they are known as #Pistorians and it is to those people that I referred. Please show me where I described you, or any other poster here, as a supporter. :waiting:

I see, I thought they were fans and therefore would in all probability offer an opinion with more than a hint of bias.

I'm sorry. I got a bit giddy and thought it was my moment for a few minutes of fame.


I guess I'll just have to appeal and ask for a retrial... fftobed:

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't know because I certainly haven't seen every interview. I did read this though:



http://ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/Witnesses

Here is the video. Whether she was not being honest on the video I don't know but this was shot on 27th February 2013. Very soon after Reeva's murder. It is only a short section but she confirms that she thought Reeva was happy. I think Roux would have pulled her apart with this if Ms Myers had testified. It is not something one can put back in the box.

see 30 sec on

Reeva Steenkamp's best friend speaks out. - YouTube

 

[Murphys_Law]

If boring old Wollie is correct about the ammo not being Black Talons but instead Ranger ammo, it's at least embarrassing for the PT. Black Talons are about 16% heavier than the Rangers (147 grain vs 127). IIRC, Saayman said "Black Talon or Ranger" ammo during his testimony, so the mistake, I would think, comes from Mangena. Didn't Mangena say he had conducted his tests with BT's, "which were hard to come by" or words to that effect? A bit of comedy there; Mangena must be smarting right about now.

Nel as I recall asked, with fiery indignation, "Who should we blame for the Black Talon ammunition that ripped through her?" OP responded "It's ammunition used for my type of firearm." OP's response was greeted with derision by some in this forum.

Wollie conceded the the two bullets have the same effect on the body (I think that's what he meant), but Roux I'm sure would like to contribute to the judge's thoughts "if the PT can't even get the ammo straight, then what else have they missed?"

The lighter Rangers may also mesh well with Wollie's argument that the PT has not properly accounted for possible deflection error in tracing the gunshots: A lighter bullet may make deflection more likely.

Wollie is boring I have to say, but the testimony tomorrow should be interesting, especially Nel's cross and Roux's re ex.

IMO, both types were used ...note the colour of the cartridges A1 to A4 on the attachment below.

The figure circled in the toilet bowl - a 5th cartridge, is speculation on my part based on a poor image

 

[aoibhinn]

Thank you for that!

I came up short.

Happy I could add something. I value your contributions, particularly on the more technical medical points.

 

[Ncl1968]

Just occurred to me sorry if it's been mentioned before but the shots in the door seems a little bit strange...
The hip shot I presume is labeled" A" which is further left as we look at door then the rest of the shots B,C, D, are more to the right towards the door handle and away from the toilet bowl
I would have expected these shots to be other way around. I understand OP shot at an angle but I just think his aim would have also been towards the toilet bowl...
Just something that's bugging me imo

 

[DebinGA]

I think a child/adolescent specialist is appropriate for OP, as he has the same impulse control issues of a toddler. All the mothers of 2 yr. olds I know will tell you that a screaming child, if rewarded, will continue to bawl or scream every time to get something s/he wants or avoid something s/he doesn't want ... i.e. act exactly like the supposedly adult OP.

 

[Cymbaline]

I could be mistaken, but I'm not aware that the hole in the door is of the correct size for a 9mm bullet.

I've not really looked into this too much though, as it doesn't seem to be a factor within the trial anymore. I was under the impression that it was of a size more akin to an air-rifle pellet.

I never said the shot in the bedroom door was from a 9mm bullet.

I am aware of the size difference. I am going to assume Oscar is also aware of the size difference. I am also going to assume that is the reason Oscar hasn't explained the orgin of that hole in the bedroom door.

If it was from the air rifle he could have said it happened days, weeks, or months ago. He did not do that.

He had .38 ammo in his safe that he claims belong to his father but his father did not verify that. Oscar is currently charged with illegally possessing that ammo.

It is my opinion that Oscar was in possession of more than one gun that night.

JMO :seeya:

 

[BritsKate]

Thanks for finding it for me, IB, I hadn't seen it. It's always possible print media is wrong too...but Gina just says 'yes' when asked the question - she didn't elaborate. I think she could easily testify and state she didn't want to speak to media about the true nature of their relationship too though. She may not have wanted to endanger the case against Oscar - other friends have commented over that concern IIRC. She really hasn't wanted to discuss 'the case' and most of her comments have been about who Reeva was as a person, friend, 'sister' and 'daughter'.

But that's just my take.

 

[crasshopper]

It seems the terms pre-menopausal and pre-menstrual are being mixed up. They are teo entirely different things.

Pyloric valve relaxation after death: The same process that relaxes bowel and bladder sphincters would relax other sphincters within the body. They are muscle groups that function in a certain way in life - whether voluntarily or involuntarily. None would function after death.!

Thanks.

True they are likely being mixed up but does anyone know what exact term did CL use on the stand? I have only read accounts online, which stated 'pre-menopausal,' perhaps erroneously.

Certainly, I haven't seen anyone claim function after death but material can certainly pass through a relaxed sphincter due to gravity, keeping in mind that a relaxed sphincter is still pretty tight. ...no pun intended

Not a very exciting day if we're reduced to menopause and sphincters!

 

[whiterum]

OP should have never said anything at all to Kim M. However he did, so any of the backlash because of it falls squarely on his shoulders. It appears that he lacks self control.

Why on earth should OP ask Kim "how can you sleep at night"? Kim is not the one that told police that OP was the killer. Kim is not the reason that OP was arrested, charged with murder and is currently on trial for murder along with the three gun/bullet charges. There is absolutely no reason, IMO, for OP to say anything to Kim concerning her conscience. OP should look inside himself and focus on his own conscience, however since he easily lies on the stand, one can say that he apparently has no conscience.

Like it or not this is a big deal because of OP himself. He had the option to keep his mouth shut. He decided not to. But of course, like OP himself, let's blame someone else for his wrong doing.

MOO

Exactly, I wonder if Kim had said the same thing to his sister on passing her or to OP himself on passing him, I suspect she would have been raked through the coals. The offence caused wasn't just the context of what was said apparently it was the venomous tone in which he said those words .

 

[Viper]

If boring old Wollie is correct about the ammo not being Black Talons but instead Ranger ammo, it's at least embarrassing for the PT. Black Talons are about 16% heavier than the Rangers (147 grain vs 127). IIRC, Saayman said "Black Talon or Ranger" ammo during his testimony, so the mistake, I would think, comes from Mangena. Didn't Mangena say he had conducted his tests with BT's, "which were hard to come by" or words to that effect? A bit of comedy there; Mangena must be smarting right about now.

Nel as I recall asked, with fiery indignation, "Who should we blame for the Black Talon ammunition that ripped through her?" OP responded "It's ammunition used for my type of firearm." OP's response was greeted with derision by some in this forum.

Wollie conceded the the two bullets have the same effect on the body (I think that's what he meant), but Roux I'm sure would like to contribute to the judge's thoughts "if the PT can't even get the ammo straight, then what else have they missed?"

The lighter Rangers may also mesh well with Wollie's argument that the PT has not properly accounted for possible deflection error in tracing the gunshots: A lighter bullet may make deflection more likely.

Wollie is boring I have to say, but the testimony tomorrow should be interesting, especially Nel's cross and Roux's re ex.

I don't know how anyone could believe that the State ballistics expert could completely screw up by not recognizing and researching what the exact type of bullets were left remaining in OPs gun, and what the exact type of the bullets that were removed from Reeva's dead body at her autopsy. Mangena did not make a misidentification of the bullets.

OP used a variant of the Ranger that had an actual black tipped bullet on the top. It was very hard for W to find any of them. That they had the black tip and were the next generation of the Black Talon it appears from W's testimony that gun enthusiasts (and lawmen) still refer to them as Black Talons. OP himself responded to Nel's questions about Black Talon ammunition without the slightest trouble, he never corrected Nel to say that he used Rangers with black bullets on top. He did not have to because the two are interchangeable.

The improved Ranger version of the Black Talon was lighter. But that translates in to increased speed, feet per second (FPS). The talons design was improved to also mushroom with a larger diameter, making them even more lethal and destructive than the first generation.

 

[G.bng]

Hi all :seeya: Super busy week, so I'm just now getting caught up on Tues & Thurs testimony. The whole Frank thing is really bothering me.

I pulled this quote from Sleuth-d over from the last thread:

baba didn't ever mention frank out at the front of the building either. although he did mention being outside with a second security guard [in the buggy].

having said that, baba also said there were five people at the front of the house after the standers got out of the car...

baba
second security guard

j stander
carise stander

??? frank ???

all very unclear/inconclusive.

I could never figure out how Baba came up with 5 people outside of the house either!! Now it makes sense. It must have been Frank.

Every single person that testified (and Roux and Nel), up until the Standers, completely left Frank out of the story. WHY?

A few times during Oscar's testimony, Nel confirmed that Oscar and Reeva were the only two people in the house that night. There was never any question about that.

For Frank to be on the property prior to the Standers arriving, he MUST have been there that night. So where exactly was he during the time of the incident??

This is going to make me nuts now.

IDK, and it is jmo, but my past few years very close experience with black male SA full time live in cares sent by the care agency the council contracted for the community care package to care for my friends two severely learning disabled adult sons, (black SAs and Zimbabweans appear to be the main stay of live in care agencies in the UK, mainly because the nationals don't like the type of work and the council doesn't pay the agency enough for nationals to want to work anyway) seeing their dedication, extreme loyalty, caring attitude, and, dare I say without it being taken that I demand it because I absolutely don't, obedience, I don't think it would be of any benefit to the defence that Frank appeared as a witness because:

a) if Frank heard anything his loyalty to OP would prevent him from disclosing it so he would just be testifying to being asleep and not hearing anything;

b) if Frank didn't hear anything his loyalty to OP does not make him a credible witness.
​

It works the same in India where my sister in law's mother still has servants, and in a different way the same in Spain too (where I lived for most of my life), where family and friends are so important that it is an open joke that courts rarely take into account testimonies from family or friend because say you have a car accident, there is always a friend or family member, people you would not expect could even think of doing something like that, who will offer to "help you out"!

 

[BritsKate]

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/psychologists-watch-pistorius-closely/

***Warning: Do not read further unless your bucket is at hand***

April 7:
6:49pm: Pistorius' psychologist cradled his head in her hands, kissing top of his head. She has moved away now, leaving just the three siblings clutching each other

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...e-the-stand-20140407-368r1.html#ixzz31A8VERiN
-----------

Should we start discussing blurring ethical boundaries or is it premature? All I know is I've been in counseling myself and my head was never in my counselor's hands (literally) and I was certainly never kissed by her. Not quite sure I got my money's worth now. :biggrin:

 

[Cherwell]

I never said the shot in the bedroom door was from a 9mm bullet.

I am aware of the size difference. I am going to assume Oscar is also aware of the size difference. I am also going to assume that is the reason Oscar hasn't explained the origin of that hole in the bedroom door.

If it was from the air rifle he could have said it happened days, weeks, or months ago. He did not do that.

Has he been asked about it though? I didn't think it had been mentioned in court at all, although I may have missed something.

He had .38 ammo in his safe that he claims belong to his father but his father did not verify that. Oscar is currently charged with illegally possessing that ammo.

It is my opinion that Oscar was in possession of more than one gun that night.

And presumably that would be a gun for which he had no licence or permit, otherwise there would be nothing illegal about having the ammunition. Am I right?

 

[Karmady]

OP should have never said anything at all to Kim M. However he did, so any of the backlash because of it falls squarely on his shoulders. It appears that he lacks self control.

Why on earth should OP ask Kim "how can you sleep at night"? Kim is not the one that told police that OP was the killer. Kim is not the reason that OP was arrested, charged with murder and is currently on trial for murder along with the three gun/bullet charges. There is absolutely no reason, IMO, for OP to say anything to Kim concerning her conscience. OP should look inside himself and focus on his own conscience, however since he easily lies on the stand, one can say that he apparently has no conscience.

Like it or not this is a big deal because of OP himself. He had the option to keep his mouth shut. He decided not to. But of course, like OP himself, let's blame someone else for his wrong doing.

MOO

Unless it's among his legal restrictions, he can speak to whomever he pleases unless what he says amounts to a crime. The prosecutor's office has already said they're not doing anything about it, so I guess it's not among his restrictions or a crime.

I don't know why he would have said those specific words to her. I only know that they aren't a threat and, to me, suggest innocence rather than guilt. Now if he'd said something like "better watch your back" or anything remotely similar, I'd understand the todo.

jmo

 

[Murphys_Law]

Just occurred to me sorry if it's been mentioned before but the shots in the door seems a little bit strange...
The hip shot I presume is labeled" A" which is further left as we look at door then the rest of the shots B,C, D, are more to the right towards the door handle and away from the toilet bowl
I would have expected these shots to be other way around. I understand OP shot at an angle but I just think his aim would have also been towards the toilet bowl...
Just something that's bugging me imo

I also have trouble reconciling shots C & D, as one of them has to hit Reeva in very close proximity to the toilet in order to leave the pattern of brain tissue, scalp and broken hair on the lid of the toilette seat and no where else.