Trial Discussion Thread #43 - 14.06.30 Day 33

[PrimeSuspect]

:tyou: zwiebel and christee for the retweets and court transcripts.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

This witness really helped the Defense's case IMO. It seems unlikely that OP used the cricket bat while on his stumps.

It is also very unlikely he was ever on his stumps during the whole incident...

 

[Cherwell]

But didn't Mangena's report determine OP fired without his prosthetics on which is the State's case?

I don't think he absolutely excluded the possibility that OP had them on.

 

[Giles]

It is also very unlikely he was ever on his stumps during the whole incident...

Maybe. I think it is the State's case that he was on his stumps throughout the incident though, so this is what the judge will have to consider. Perhaps Nel will suggest he had his prosthesis on the entire time - it would make more sense.

 

[jay-jay]

I don't think he absolutely excluded the possibility that OP had them on.

.. and not only that but the prosecution are at liberty to change what they believe to be the truth as and when certain bits of information come to light. The defence, of course, cannot do that because they are the ones who do actually know what happened that night (or at least the defendant himself does), so if they change anything about the story then it looks mighty suspicious, but the prosecution don't have that problem and they are trying to work on the information provided to them (because they don't know for a fact what happened that night) .. they suggest that they believe certain things to be true based on bits of evidence, and then things like whether he was on his stumps or not are really left open so as if and when some piece of information comes to light which proves whether he was or he wasn't, then they can go along with whichever that is.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

The defence didn't want the evaluation in the first place so I don't know why they would be disappointed.

But further, you are jumping the gun somewhat. We don't know the full evaluation hasn't found he suffers from an anxiety disorder since all that has been disclosed so far is that OP does not suffer from "mental illness or defect" that affects his appreciation of wrongfulness generally, or that could have affected his appreciation of wrongfulness that night. That's all we know so far from the report none of which means he doesn't have any mental condition or personality disorders, and the fact prosecution and defence have sort of reserved the right to refer to it and dispute other parts of it would appear to show there are other conditions reported just that these would not have affected his appreciation of wrongfulness that or any other night.

I think that GAD was the mental health diagnosis that the defence wanted to use as a mitigating reason for OP killing Reeva - ie, he was so anxious that it clouded his judgement and made him seriously overreact.

 

[G.bng]

Roux is making a huge histrionic hullaballoo out of the extension cord mystery. I think he is trying to make the cops appear crooked and inept.

Maybe it isn't just a hullaballoo but a necessary move. IMO it is important since Nel used that cable, or rather a photo of it, as a major piece of evidence to prove OP's story when he returned to the bedroom couldn't possibly be true since according to Nel the cable wasn't long enough to plug into where OP said it had been.

I recall Roux objected to Nel using a photo as "proof" the cable wasn't long enough (quite rightly since it is impossible to judge from a photo) and I believe the Judge sided with Roux but in the end allowed Nel to continue the line of questioning on the basis he would enter the cable and its measurements into evidence, or something like that but IMBW. But if neither cable nor forensic measurements of the cable and the distance from fan to the wall have been entered into evidence then Roux is obliged to get the cable barred so that Nel's argument about the cable not being long enough proving OP's version as false will be struck from the record, i.e. no cable, no measurements = no evidence so Masipa would not be able to consider it a fact. Nel would do exactly the same if the boot were on the other foot.

If anyone recalls the episode of the cable better than I or has a link, please do.

 

[liesbeth]

Maybe. I think it is the State's case that he was on his stumps throughout the incident though, so this is what the judge will have to consider. Perhaps Nel will suggest he had his prosthesis on the entire time - it would make more sense.

Or perhaps Pistorius was on his knees when he used the bat?

 

[Marfa Lights]

Sometimes facts ARE dry. Thankfully, I'm guessing facts about acoustics and decibels will for this judge trump opinions and emotions about The Screams.

I don't know why anyone would give any more credence to the testimony of an "expert" professional witness who has been coached and is being compensated by the defense than they would give to the voluntary testimony of impartial bystanders. Both can be misleading, of course, but sometimes opinions and emotions are also based on facts and in the case of OP's neighbor's-- they can at least state that they were actually present and personally experienced in real time the "facts" they are reporting.

Being devoid of emotional content does not necessarily make something more rational or true. And as we have all endured, the most emotional testimony in this trial has come from the defendant.

 

[Giles]

Judge Greenland thinks this sound testimony is fairly useless and describes it as "desperate tactics".

 

[liesbeth]

Maybe it isn't just a hullaballoo but a necessary move. IMO it is important since Nel used that cable, or rather a photo of it, as a major piece of evidence to prove OP's story when he returned to the bedroom couldn't possibly be true since according to Nel the cable wasn't long enough to plug into where OP said it had been.

I recall Roux objected to Nel using a photo as "proof" the cable wasn't long enough (quite rightly since it is impossible to judge from a photo) and I believe the Judge sided with Roux but in the end allowed Nel to continue the line of questioning on the basis he would enter the cable and its measurements into evidence, or something like that but IMBW. But if neither cable nor forensic measurements of the cable and the distance from fan to the wall have been entered into evidence then Roux is obliged to get the cable barred so that Nel's argument about the cable not being long enough proving OP's version as false will be struck from the record, i.e. no cable, no measurements = no evidence so Masipa would not be able to consider it a fact. Nel would do exactly the same if the boot were on the other foot.

If anyone recalls the episode of the cable better than I or has a link, please do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwzV3uB9UrI

At about 54:00 minutes they discuss the cord.

As I understand it Nel says that the extension cord's plug could not have moved much further to the right because the clippers was plugged in. Since the plug had to remain in the same place for the clipper, the length of the cord in question is not the length of the extension cord, but the length of the cord of the fan (from the plug to the area where OP said he placed the fan.)

 

[G.bng]

So Roux's team had the key from Stander. Could Stander or Roux's team have removed it OR perhaps OP's housekeeper has moved it. There were sound tests done, did those doing the sound tests use it and remove it. It seems the house has now been emptied due to its sale. So who removed everything?

I wasn't concentrating but didn't Roux say they only got the key after the police had finished? And seeing as the State didn't take the cable into evidence they can't blame whoever took it since if they left it one would assume it was not needed... well at least not until Nel used a photo of it as a part of his evidence (I seem to recall fairly major) that proved OP's story of what happened in the bedroom couldn't possibly be true.

But no one could know, it was going to for a crucial piece of evidence ... crucial to the State, that is as if the cable doesn't appear Roux's request will surely be that Nel's argument around it must be struck from the record and by the Judge's face today I reckon she will grant it, as is fair anyway.
JMHO

 

[james83]

I'm sure Lin is a highly intelligent decent man, but as soon as he made the comment that hearing is open to interpretation and varies from person to person his whole testimony felt pointless.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Maybe. I think it is the State's case that he was on his stumps throughout the incident though, so this is what the judge will have to consider. Perhaps Nel will suggest he had his prosthesis on the entire time - it would make more sense.

Agreed - although I sense that the PT had to say he was on his stumps as it would have been nigh on impossible to prove when he actually put on the prosthesis.

Versfeld this morning has made it even more unlikely that he was on his stumps IMO. Not falling over as he ran around on his stumps in the dark AND walking backwards towards the bed keeping his eyes on the passage, whilst holding the gun out in front of him….. Hmmmmm

 

[G.bng]

I think My Lady is showing a bit of bias in favor of Roux here. She is acting like this lost cord is a major federal crime. If the key to the house was given to Stander, then anyone could have taken it. Not necessary to assume the cops were to blame.

Sorry, you are respectfully incorrect. ➊The "cops" controlled the crime scene therefore were responsible for every item there during that time. ➋The "cops" didn't take the cable into evidence, therefore they are responsible for that too.

And to be fair the "cops" probably didn't need it but much later, without checking they had the cable, Nel decides to use the cable, or a photo of it, to prove a part of the State's case, i.e. that OP's testimony of what happened when he returned to the bedroom couldn't possibly be true.

Now, if I have this correct, for the relative part of the State's evidence to stand in evidence, Nel would have to enter the cable into evidence and file it with the court, along with the measurement of the distance from fan to plug which from a photo of the cable Nel affirmed could not reach where OP said it had been plugged in. otherwise IMO it will have to be struck off the record which is what I believe Roux is going for, not the cable itself which he knows is never gonna appear now.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't know why anyone would give any more credence to the testimony of an "expert" professional witness who has been coached and is being compensated by the defense than they would give to the voluntary testimony of impartial bystanders. Both can be misleading, of course, but sometimes opinions and emotions are also based on facts and in the case of OP's neighbor's-- they can at least state that they were actually present and personally experienced in real time the "facts" they are reporting.

Being devoid of emotional content does not necessarily make something more rational or true. And as we have all endured, the most emotional testimony in this trial has come from the defendant.

Neighbors heard....something. They interpreted what they heard. That's what people do. If you live close enough to neighbors to hear loud something's, as I do, then you most likely have had the experience of hearing a loud something and assuming it was something other than what it was in reality.


I've heard what I thought was a child screaming in pain, rushed outside and saw instead a child screaming with joy as his dad roughhoused with him on the lawn. I've heard loud "arguments, " thought a husband and wife were fighting, and then have realized they were outside with friends drinking beer and playing charades.

Neighbors can act in good faith and get it very wrong, as so many eyewitnesses do.

The emotionalism I referred to wasn't in any case that of the neighbors. . And to repeat, yes, imo it is mighty refreshing to hear an expert talk about what is scientifically possible to hear, rather than to rehash speculations built upon other speculations about what was heard or not heard.

 

[Hope4More]

As for the missing cord. Marsipa is right to be upset that a piece of evidence has gone missing. I imagine Nel can't be terribly pleased either at this blatant display of police sloppiness/incompetence...or worse.

 

[JudgeJudi]

But Mangena's ballistics report and the therefore the State's case claims otherwise, doesn't it? Or did I miss something ?

No, you haven't missed anything. At the time of OP's bail application the State put forward that OP was wearing his prostheses. However the police expert who did the scientific analysis on the bathroom door, Lt Colonel Vermeulen, was of the belief that OP was on his stumps. Hence the PT went with that opinion. Capt Mangena testified that his ballistics report was based on the fact that OP said he was on his stumps. However, he qualified this by saying it was possible he was wearing his prostheses.

Be that as it may, neither Vermeulen nor Mangena stated that it was impossible for him to have been wearing his prostheses. Obviously if they made a categorical statement that he was on his stumps that would have been the end of the matter. However my belief is based on the fact it was possible. I guess it boils down to what you personally believe happened that night, taking into account all the known facts, probabilities, lies etc., because no-one will ever really know precisely what happened.

I'm one of the believers that there was an argument that escalated over the course of the evening. OP is a person who displays many narcissistic qualities - is controlling, has a sense of self-importance, believes he is special, has a sense of entitlement, lacks empathy and is arrogant. He also has a very hot temper. Because of this, I can't believe he'd have an argument with Reeva while on his stumps with her towering over him. He'd want to assume a more dominant posture which would necessitate him wearing his legs. I can't for one moment believe that he'd allow himself to literally be talked down to by her.

Secondly, he's stated over and over again how he was terrified after he perceived that an intruder/s may have entered his home, but nevertheless proceeded towards the danger when he had the opportunity to ring the police himself, activate the alarm, unlock the bedroom door and escape, shout out to the person that he was armed or wait in the bedroom with his firearm for the person to appear. After Dr Versfeld's testimony today regarding OP's many problems on his stumps - he finds it's difficult to walk, let alone run, he relies on light to see where his legs are and his balance is worse in the dark, I'm totally convinced that he was not on his stumps that night. JMO

 

[Marfa Lights]

Neighbors heard....something. They interpreted what they heard. That's what people do. If you live close enough to neighbors to hear loud something's, as I do, then you most likely have had the experience of hearing a loud something and assuming it was something other than what it was in reality.


I've heard what I thought was a child screaming in pain, rushed outside and saw instead a child screaming with joy as his dad roughhoused with him on the lawn. I've heard loud "arguments, " thought a husband and wife were fighting, and then have realized they were outside with friends drinking beer and playing charades.

Neighbors can act in good faith and get it very wrong, as so many eyewitnesses do.

The emotionalism I referred to wasn't in any case that of the neighbors. . And to repeat, yes, imo it is mighty refreshing to hear an expert talk about what is scientifically possible to hear, rather than to rehash speculations built upon other speculations about what was heard or not heard.

Hope4, please tell me what points Lin made that you found to be helpful-- I was really looking forward to someone who could provide relevant and accurate acoustical test results, but it sounded like Lin was reading basic concepts from a textbook, and like another poster, I started having flashbacks to graduate student math instructors that I could not understand. I would be grateful if you could hit on a few high points.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Bit of a side question... does anyone know the name of the blond lawyer that sits below the Judge? (the clerk/assistant)

No, she's not a lawyer. I don't know her name but she would be Masipa's associate, i.e. personal assistant. They always occupy that position in court, mark exhibits and hand them to the judge plus other duties, and when out of court type up judgments, make appointments, liaise with counsel and other secretarial type duties.