Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[lithgow1]

Usually they do give each other the information out of courtesy.

They way I understand it, and I may be wrong, is that one of the reasons Nel charged Oscar with premeditated murder, or rather murder under sections 6 and 51, is that under section 6 you do not get bail unless there are exceptional circumstances (medical reasons) or if you give a statement explaining what happened.

Oscar refused to talk to the police before the bail hearing. But in order to be considered for bail under a section 6 murder charge, he decided to give a statement. And now he's bound to that statement and he can't change his story too much. Clever of Nel.

Nice summation there. Remember too how at the time many legal people commented that giving that statement in support of getting bail could come back to haunt him. Would seem they were right. I reckon he was just so desperate to avoid jail he would have said anything then - back then, a year or two until he had to front up to court must have seemed a long time. But now it's here.

 

[Ncl1968]

Thanks, it wouldn't surprise me as I zoned out at times and probably missed the context. I thought I heard that both OP and uncle Arnold were present during a test. I haven't got the will to listen and check though. Hey! Ho!

That was the mishap bat and door test done at uncles house

 

[patCee]

That was the mishap bat and door test done at uncles house

Thanks for that. Great, I can continue to be shocked then.

:facepalm:

 

[steveml]

Did anyone just notice the size of Woolies briefcase? I was more like a suitcase and yet he's got no notes, no reports, no laptop/computer with all his findings on .. so what's he got in there then? :facepalm:

He's old skool.

Probably one of these...

 

[DebinGA]

Mangena couldn't identify which shots were 3rd and 4th. Head then arm or arm then head. He couldn't establish and left that open . .

Yes, but, iirc and I may not, in Mangena's scenario Reeva's arm was bent and lifted, as if protecting her head when hit. And if the head shot had preceded the shot into and out of her arm, he said the arm would have dropped immediately.

 

[JudgeJudi]

OMG, he has just confirmed that the magazine rack was there and she fell on it .. in total contradiction to OP's version, and he's agreed he is in contradiction with that!

Did he get the evil eye from OP ..??

The Devil's Advocate is having one of the most shocking weeks of his 30-odd year career.

 

[Gryffindor]

I believe they're talking about where OP would have been on the night of the shooting.

Think it was the cricket bat hitting door sound test. Oscar himself was present and the one hitting the door.

 

[Cherwell]

Hmm. Blatant incompetence is not noticing there was a bullet staring up at you from the toilet.

It's a good job Woolie had his wits about him otherwise they'd all be trying to resolve a fatal shooting consisting of four shots fired with only 3 bullets.

It couldn't have been "staring up" at anyone because the toilet was full of blood. You would have to put your hand in and feel around to find it. Kudos to Wollie for being the one to take on the icky task. But if he hadn't, someone else would have as I thought I read somewhere that representatives from both sides were there. No idea where I read it though - does it ring a bell with anyone else?

 

[Zinn]

And Ms Lundgren specifically said to Nel that she did not find anything to show that Reeva was outside the normal range.

I'm not suggesting she was a great witness. I'm just saying I suspect the defense wanted a witness who could emphasize what was possible over what was probable, to put it in Nel-like terms.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

 

[liesbeth]

http://i.imgur.com/HSWslWf.jpg?1

The defense says Reeva came to rest on the floor. Where? No smears. No evidence of her body resting anywhere but on the magazine rack. Or am I missing something?

ETA: Should not have been a url but a link. Graphic image warning in link above.

 

[Gryffindor]

Yes, but, iirc and I may not, in Mangena's scenario Reeva's arm was bent and lifted, as if protecting her head when hit. And if the head shot had preceded the shot into and out of her arm, he said the arm would have dropped immediately.

Yeah and vice versa. If arm 1st, her right arm (near amputation) couldn't remain protecting her head either. For her right arm to be hit, I reckon that had to be 3rd shot, then very quickly afterwards, 4th shot grazing left hand fingers and entering head.

 

[Ncl1968]

Anymore answer the lack of blood on the walls in that small toilet yet? Or will roux bring on a top decorator to explain the lack of splashes... I'm sorry mylady I'm not an expert at blood splatter...

 

[liesbeth]

I'm not suggesting she was a great witness. I'm just saying I suspect the defense wanted a witness who could emphasize what was possible over what was probable, to put it in Nel-like terms.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

Apologies if I sounded abrupt. I understand what you're saying. And I should have said that I think she was the best defense witness so far.

But in my opinion she did not cast doubt on the fact that Reeva ate long after 7pm that night. Because she said that Reeva fell within the normal range and her report started by saying that a normal or rather, ideal person's stomach would have been totally empty after 6 hours.

 

[whiterum]

Did anyone just notice the size of Woolies briefcase? I was more like a suitcase and yet he's got no notes, no reports, no laptop/computer with all his findings on .. so what's he got in there then? :facepalm:

Six pairs of underwear, an apple, a machine gun, a wire brush, and two slices of stale bread?

 

[lithgow1]

As a side thought, it will be interesting won't it when this is over and all the pundits etc are able to speak freely. At the moment they have to be very guarded in what they say.

Re all this expert testimony, whoever said earlier that the difference in quality stems from it being more difficult to defend a lie summed it up for me. It's the quality of the evidence as much as the quality of the experts that is putting the defence on the ropes. And even allowing that, Dixon was mostly a dud and I was very surprised that Wolmerans was so disorganised - thought he'd be spot on with reports and all that if only because the hapless Mr Dixon got so hammered on that score. With the exception of a few things here and there the expert defence has been as weak and all over the place as Pistorius' stories - I wonder why that is.

 

[Gryffindor]

It couldn't have been "staring up" at anyone because the toilet was full of blood. You would have to put your hand in and feel around to find it. Kudos to Wollie for being the one to take on the icky task. But if he hadn't, someone else would have as I thought I read somewhere that representatives from both sides were there. No idea where I read it though - does it ring a bell with anyone else?

From memory, Woolie discovered and retrieved it from the toilet bowl after the police/PT reps had been and gone and missed it. He handed it over to the police.

 

[steveml]

It's lawyer speak and it means "Let's change the subject." Roux did it too. Remember his: "But..We'll get back to that." It bothered me too at first. A friend explained that if the issue is important it will be "gotten back to" by the opposing party during cross- or re-examination.

Both Nel and Roux use a similar technique. It's simply a method which allows them to ditch their current question without fuss. Their style is to ask a question for which they already have further questions depending on the response they receive. When they quickly receive an answer that negates their line of questioning they say 'we'll get back to that', although quite often they don't need to return to the question as it no longer has relevance.

There are also occasions where they do return to the same topic, as you quite correctly mention.

 

[DebinGA]

As a side thought, it will be interesting won't it when this is over and all the pundits etc are able to speak freely. At the moment they have to be very guarded in what they say.

Re all this expert testimony, whoever said earlier that the difference in quality stems from it being more difficult to defend a lie summed it up for me. It's the quality of the evidence as much as the quality of the experts that is putting the defence on the ropes. And even allowing that, Dixon was mostly a dud and I was very surprised that Wolmerans was so disorganised - thought he'd be spot on with reports and all that if only because the hapless Mr Dixon got so hammered on that score. With the exception of a few things here and there the expert defence has been as weak and all over the place as Pistorius' stories - I wonder why that is.

There were experts that weren't used like pathologist Reggie Perumal and, it's looking like, ballistics expert Jannie Van der Westhuizen. Then there are the experts promised who've yet to appear/testify:
*psychologist ... *screams like woman tester ... *police tampered with scene expert and ....

 

[Duchy]

Love that shot with Mangena bottom left, Nel in the middle an O P top right...

I first read that as 'Love that shot with Magena's botttom' :blushing:

 

[lithgow1]

There were experts that weren't used like pathologist Reggie Perumal and, it's looking like, ballistics expert Jannie Van der Westhuizen. Then there are the experts promised who've yet to appear/testify:
*psychologist ... *screams like woman tester ... *police tampered with scene expert and ....

They are going to have to have the psycologist aren't they and then Nel can apply to have testimony from 'his' psychologist so there'll be that to come. And yes, they'll have to sort this police tampering out unless they want those photos of the bedroom as it was on the morning to go into the record - which would be curtains, ironically, for OP.

Notice too how Nel never fails to slip a mention of Prof (?) Perumel in? He's very highly renowned eh so his presence on the 'team' but absence from the stand says a lot IMO.