Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Budgie]

My first post here... And sorry for just jumping in like this, but this is just to answer a few questions about some questions asked in an earlier post...

Wollie left the SAPS in about 1992, which was at about the same time, I started in the SAPS Engineering unit (1992-1999). I worked quite a bit with Gerrie Nel later on 1996-1999, when we did a number of investigations against corrupt policemen at vehicle clearance centers and also did a number of investigations of vehicle theft syndicates... At that stage Gerrie Nel was a reasonably senior prosecutor already.

After I left the SAPS, Gerrie Nel (at the dept of Justice at the time) was appointed as head of the "Scorpions" which was an independent of the SAPS, but they had a number of SAPS members seconded to them to investigate corruption in the SAPS and other government departments.

Any interaction between Wollie and Gerrie (when Wollie was a policeman), would have been before 1992, with Wollie as ballistic expert for the police and Gerrie as a prosecutor.

Hello there and...... :welcome4:

 

[crasshopper]

Hello there and...... :welcome4:

Mine was a little over the top so I'm tagging on to yours

 

[Interested Bystander]

<respectfully snipped>



My guess is nouveau riche. However, some of our very best barristers (advocates) have similarly come from extremely humble beginnings, even going on to become judges. Police officers admitted to the Bar in NSW, Oz, can be looked down on by some. The old school tie is still very much alive and well.

I guess I was a little hard on him and I totally agree with you. Many a professional , in all walks of life, comes from humble beginnings and seemingly need to work doubly hard to break into the upper ranks. I admire anyone who makes it through sheer hard work. I think the aggravation I feel with Oldwage is his apparent need to be pompous and overbearing. IMO it adds nothing to the trial and befits an actor rather than a lawyer. It saddens me to think he needs to don this fake attitude in order to function as a lawyer, leading me to feel he has many inadequacies/ insecurities (probably originating from his humble beginnings) lurking just below the surface with which he has yet to come to terms. MOO

 

[Budgie]

Mine was a little over the top so I'm tagging on to yours

Yours was fab...I never got that from you when I joined.....but that's ok....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

LOL. Thanks for this. Here's my version:

Nel: Mr. Pistorius, did you have a pee this morning?
Nel: Why are you crying?

** 10 Minute Adjournment **

Nel: Mr. Pistorius, did you have a pee this morning?
Ocscar: I did my Lady. I relieved myself at 6:42 am.
Nel: YOURSELF. That's right. You relieved YOURSELF. This is all about YOU.
Oscar: Um
Nel: Um? Why did you say um?
Oscar: I, I don't know my Lady. I was confused by the question.
Nel: No no no Mr. Pistorius. You cannot get away with that. You said um. Why would you say that? My question was about whether relieving yourself was all about you. Why did you say um?
Oscar: I don't know my Lady.
Nel: Tell the court exactly what you did.
Oscar: I walked to the bathroom and I raised the lid and
Nel: You raised the lid? Mr. Pistorius you didn't say you raised the lid when you told the court a few minutes ago you relieved yourself at 6:42 am.
Oscar: I raised the lid my Lady. Otherwise there would have been piss all over the floor.
Nel: No Mr. Pistorius. You see? You are tailoring your evidence.
Oscar: I'm not tailoring my evidence my Lady.
Roux: My lady I apologize for it the interjection, but I just wanted to say that your bun is brilliant today. One can only assume it must be there to hold your vast intellect my Lady. Sorry for the interruption my Lady. I just hadn't grovelled to you for while and I was getting anxious. Thank you my Lady.
Judge: Yes.
Nel: Mr. Pistorius, why are you tailoring your evidence?
Oscar: How can you sleep at night?
Nel: What?
Oscar: What?
Nel: Why did you say that?
Oscar: I didn't.
Nel: Mr. Pistorius you asked how I can sleep at night!
Oscar: No I didn't my Lady.
Nel: Do you walk to work or take a lunch?
Oscar: I...what?
Nel: What is the last movie you saw?
Oscar: Escape from Alcatraz
Nel: Okay, so you claim you opened the lid and then what?
Oscar: During the movie? What lid? I had some M & Ms.
Nel: You cannot get away with this Mr. Pistorius. Pretending you don't understand the question. You claimed to this court that you opened the toilet lid. What time did you open it?
Oscar: 6:42 my Lady.
Nel: No! You told this court you relieved yourself at 6:42! You are lying about relieving yourself Mr. Pistorius. Why would you do that? I put it to you that you did not relieve yourself this morning or any time since. What do you say Mr. Pisorius? Sorry, Mr. Pistorius?
Oscar: I relieved myself my Lady. As I said, I relieved myself on the balcony at 6:42.
Nel: The balcony?
Oscar: I made a mistake my Lady. I relieved myself in the toilet.
Nel: May it please the court my lady I'd like to please the court. Can we take a short adjournment, please? To please the court?

Adjourned.

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

Delicious!!!

 

[BarnacleZA]

:welcome6:

Thank you, very much looking forward to more contributions and insight.

Please tell the PT they're cleaning up and send my personal regards to M. Nel j/k



Read all about the arrest re: Scorpions work, so glad he keeps fighting.

Sorry about the banner but I was thrilled!

Thanks!

I've actually worked with both Barry and Gerrie on various different matters and was impressed by both.

Gerrie:
Was the first prosecutor I worked with that prepared PROPERLY. In one case I investigated, he flew down to Cape Town to observe the investigation process, which meant he had first-hand knowledge for questioning at trial. This is not very common in SA, because of the amount of cases handled. (All cases I did with Gerrie ended up as guilty verdicts.)

Gerrie's style of questioning is to place you on the back-foot first and then to get to the facts. If it appears as if you are recovering, he says he will come back to the point later and then uses something else to get you off-balance again. Once he is satisfied that you are sufficiently off-balance he returns to the previous line of questioning.

Barry:
Is normally also exceptionally well prepared. I however think he was on the back-foot from the start with Oscar's dodgy version. Interestingly all the cases I did with Barry ended up as not guilty... :tongue:

Barry's style is similar, but not exactly the same. When cross-examining he jumps around a lot between different points, which also means you never get into a comfort zone. But it is a little less planned than Gerrie's approach.

 

[Interested Bystander]

... Mangena's bottom... Do people really use the word "bottom" any more?

We seem to in the Uk.

 

[Karmady]

Yes but what do you think about not submitting a final report to the opposing team during discovery.

For that to happen in front of the judge's face and with no objection, it must be permissible under the rules.

 

[jassy writer]

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 was a bullet fragment as far as I understand, not a whole bullet.

 

[Interested Bystander]

It was a bullet fragment as far as I understand, not a whole bullet.

Yes, and there would have been other fragments to indicate a fourth bullet.

 

[crasshopper]

Yours was fab...I never got that from you when I joined.....but that's ok....

So sorry, but here you go! :balloons:

:welcome:
:welcome6:
:wagon:

Lovely having you here, I'm pretty new too

 

[toevlugsoord]

If Nel keeps going on Monday the way he did yesterday with Woolie on the stand. I can not for the life of me see how Roux will wrap up on Tuesday as he told Judge Masipa. Does anyone know who the next witness on the list is?

I had the same exact thought!
Woolie will surely take up most/all of Monday.
I have heard a psychologist will be called. Beyond that it's anyone's guess. He might cut it off early if he feels he's used up enough court time and if he goes beyond he might irritate the judge.
I wonder if he's regretting using up so much time with Dixon?

 

[toevlugsoord]

Thanks!

I've actually worked with both Barry and Gerrie on various different matters and was impressed by both.

Gerrie:
Was the first prosecutor I worked with that prepared PROPERLY. In one case I investigated, he flew down to Cape Town to observe the investigation process, which meant he had first-hand knowledge for questioning at trial. This is not very common in SA, because of the amount of cases handled. (All cases I did with Gerrie ended up as guilty verdicts.)

Gerrie's style of questioning is to place you on the back-foot first and then to get to the facts. If it appears as if you are recovering, he says he will come back to the point later and then uses something else to get you off-balance again. Once he is satisfied that you are sufficiently off-balance he returns to the previous line of questioning.

Barry:
Is normally also exceptionally well prepared. I however think he was on the back-foot from the start with Oscar's dodgy version. Interestingly all the cases I did with Barry ended up as not guilty... :tongue:

Barry's style is similar, but not exactly the same. When cross-examining he jumps around a lot between different points, which also means you never get into a comfort zone. But it is a little less planned than Gerrie's approach.

Welcome! Exciting to have you contribute.
Can I ask you a few questions since you seem to be somewhat of an insider to how things run?
1) Do you get the sense that Nel believes the state's case?

2) Do you get the sense that Roux believes OP's version?

3) Do you believe the police did indeed bungle the crime scene and moved things around (unknowingly) before the first set of photos were taken etc.?

Thanks!

 

[BarnacleZA]

In terms of Wollie. I also know him quite well... Also had a few beers with him over the years... hehehe... He was one of the best in his field, but I think age and and a soft heart got to him here...

In terms of the correct approach for the reports...
If he submitted any interim or final report it should be filed and available. If any new evidence comes out in trial that could influence his finding, he could always submit an addendum to the original report to indicate how new information could influence his findings. In some cases where I testified, some witnesses changed their original versions substantially during the trial, which means you have to redo all your calculations, as the boundary conditions change. It is however still wise to keep your original values, so that you can indicate to court what the influence of the changes are.

Personally, I don't think he tailored according to others, but I do know from the language and phrases used his report that it was checked by Barry Roux and the language used was Barry-speak, (as opposed to Oscar-speak).

 

[Interested Bystander]

A big thank you to the overnight posters. Always a pleasure to catch up with the very interesting posts in the morning, especially on a Saturday when I can take my time to do so whilst enjoying endless coffees and a leisurely breakfast. Why cannot every day be like this? lol

 

[supernovaNic]

Thanks!

SBM

Gerrie's style of questioning is to place you on the back-foot first and then to get to the facts. If it appears as if you are recovering, he says he will come back to the point later and then uses something else to get you off-balance again. Once he is satisfied that you are sufficiently off-balance he returns to the previous line of questioning.

That explains why every time it seems like we're getting somewhere, and something good is gonna happen, he'll say we'll come to that later. lol

 

[Budgie]

Yes but what do you think about not submitting a final report to the opposing team during discovery.

Thanks!

I've actually worked with both Barry and Gerrie on various different matters and was impressed by both.

Gerrie:
Was the first prosecutor I worked with that prepared PROPERLY. In one case I investigated, he flew down to Cape Town to observe the investigation process, which meant he had first-hand knowledge for questioning at trial. This is not very common in SA, because of the amount of cases handled. (All cases I did with Gerrie ended up as guilty verdicts.)

Gerrie's style of questioning is to place you on the back-foot first and then to get to the facts. If it appears as if you are recovering, he says he will come back to the point later and then uses something else to get you off-balance again. Once he is satisfied that you are sufficiently off-balance he returns to the previous line of questioning.

Barry:
Is normally also exceptionally well prepared. I however think he was on the back-foot from the start with Oscar's dodgy version. Interestingly all the cases I did with Barry ended up as not guilty... :tongue:

Barry's style is similar, but not exactly the same. When cross-examining he jumps around a lot between different points, which also means you never get into a comfort zone. But it is a little less planned than Gerrie's approach.

Don't ever log off...loose your login or password....or move from your keyboard until this trial is over.
My goodness, reading your words is like reading an autobiography I just can't put down.:loveyou:

So give us your thoughts...How's Nel doing v. Roux?

 

[DILLIGAF]

:welcome: From a relative newbie too Thoughtful post indeed.

I think when Woolie admitted he watched earlier ( Mangena's) testimony and revised his notes he conceeded to 'tailoring.' Highly irregular and flauts standards of discovery. He's a professional...there was no oversight involved, strictly calculation imo.

Providing updates during the course of your investigation is one thing, not summarizing in a detailed final report and making that available to the court and PT from the outset, points to another imho.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10529050&postcount=882

Looking forward to seeing you here!

Thanks for welcome crasshopper.
Thanks for the link, it clears up the issue a little for me. :cheers:

Just on the tailoring part. Woolie did admit to revising/editing his report, re correct English etc, but did he actually admit to tailoring his evidence to suit OP's version? I don't remember him doing so.

And yes, I agree with you about the lack of professionalism. For such a 'renowned' ballistics expert his lack of written updates/record keeping is simply stunning to me.
It's hard to accept that his final report (provided to the defence after the PT had rested) was his only report. The DT said they would refute findings of PT's ballistics expert at the beginning of the trial. They must have had some sort of report at that time surely. :waitasec:

 

[supernovaNic]

Yours was fab...I never got that from you when I joined.....but that's ok....

Loll... I got a cosmos lesson from Shane as my greeting.

Where is he anyway ?

 

[Interested Bystander]

In terms of Wollie. I also know him quite well... Also had a few beers with him over the years... hehehe... He was one of the best in his field, but I think age and and a soft heart got to him here...

In terms of the correct approach for the reports...
If he submitted any interim or final report it should be filed and available. If any new evidence comes out in trial that could influence his finding, he could always submit an addendum to the original report to indicate how new information could influence his findings. In some cases where I testified, some witnesses changed their original versions substantially during the trial, which means you have to redo all your calculations, as the boundary conditions change. It is however still wise to keep your original values, so that you can indicate to court what the influence of the changes are.

Personally, I don't think he tailored according to others, but I do know from the language and phrases used his report that it was checked by Barry Roux and the language used was Barry-speak, (as opposed to Oscar-speak).

Welcome. Great to have you on board. Interesting first posts. Really looking forward to further insight.

Re Wollie. He came across as a dear, avuncular person. I imagine that the fact that the trial was being televised wouldn't have helped him. Nel and Roux have settled into it very well. I don't detect any playing to an audience. Have you worked with Oldwage? You may have read that I find his style difficult to stomach, ie I feel he is acting and there is absolutely no need to.