Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[JudgeJudi]

I don't think the assessors miss much. I think when the judge makes decisions after leaving the court room, the assessors have a big say in what the Judge says when they come back in. I think she needs their help. This is their role.

Correct. The assessors and their role is a chestnut that keeps coming back in this trial, but for the benefit of those who are unaware ...

Henzen-du Toit is an expert in criminal justice. She has an Honours degree in psychology and Master's degree in criminal justice and criminal prosecution. She is working on a doctorate in criminal law, criminal prosecution, evidence and constitutional interpretation.

Both Mazibuko and Henzen-du Toit sit with Judge Masipa during the proceedings and listen to all the evidence presented to her. However, Witz says assessors are only there to help the judge decide the verdict. "They are only meant [to] try on the facts and can overrule the judge. But they can only overrule her on the facts. When it comes to sentencing they play no role whatsoever."

… if the two assessors were to rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor were to rule so, that verdict would be the accepted one. The same would apply if two of them were to rule in favour of an acquittal.

http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/democracy/3759-assessors-can-decide-pistorius-s-fate

 

[Kimster]

WEBSLEUTHS will be offline tomorrow morning, July 4th, from 6AM to about 8AM PST for a software upgrade. You can get updates about the upgrade during that time on Twitter via #websleuths.

The search feature will not be fully operational for a couple of days after the upgrade, due to the amount of information on our site. It takes awhile to get that data back online.

For more information and to get answers to your questions, follow this link to our private forum: For Members Only

 

[kittychi]

Perhaps Mr Nel is less interested in self-promotion than the Bugliosi's of this world and just goes about his job in a low-key professional manner. Not everyone wants to be a 'star' and that, to me, is a relief when compared to showboating American lawyers in televised trials. Personally I think Nel, on the whole, is brilliant at his job, as his conviction of the former head of Interpol would suggest.

Aside from that, having finally caught up with today's proceedings on you-tube, I'd like to think that whether we are in agreement as to Pistorius's guilt or not, we would all come together in judging Mr Oldwage to be a pompous ________ of the highest order.

Totally agree about Nel. If I were Reeva Steenkamp's mother, I would feel some comfort and assurance that this prosecutor is doing everything he can and is working very hard to see justice for my daughter.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Can Nel ask that the Professor is treated as a hostile witness?

A hostile witness is one of your own witnesses that is giving unfavourable testimony to your client. This Professor is being deliberately evasive and obstructive, and in my opinion tailoring his evidence to suit OP's version. This has become the norm for the DT.

 

[kaos]

I know what you said and I quoted it:

"Any other criminal case the world over it would have been pounced on by attorneys to try and show some kind of deviant behaviour".

And I disagree with that, because as I said, it's a commonplace thing.

You don't think attorneys involved in a high profile murder case would try and link recently viewed *advertiser censored* by a killer as perverse, weird or kinky? I completely agree *advertiser censored* in and of itself is commonplace but when there's a murder charge involved, *advertiser censored* is more often than not, used to discredit or smear the accused person.

 

[JuneBug67]

Perhaps Mr Nel is less interested in self-promotion than the Bugliosi's of this world and just goes about his job in a low-key professional manner. Not everyone wants to be a 'star' and that, to me, is a relief when compared to showboating American lawyers in televised trials. Personally I think Nel, on the whole, is brilliant at his job, as his conviction of the former head of Interpol would suggest.

Aside from that, having finally caught up with today's proceedings on you-tube, I'd like to think that whether we are in agreement as to Pistorius's guilt or not, we would all come together in judging Mr Oldwage to be a pompous ________ of the highest order.

Oldwage is bruuuuuttttallllllll. Just. Ugh.

 

[Cherwell]

You don't think attorneys involved in a high profile murder case would try and link recently viewed *advertiser censored* by a killer as perverse, weird or kinky? I completely agree *advertiser censored* in and of itself is commonplace but when there's a murder charge involved, *advertiser censored* is more often than not, used to discredit or smear the accused person.

Not in a case like this, where there's no suggestion of a sexual element to the killing.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Joanna Yeates murder case, but the killer was found to have viewed violent *advertiser censored* featuring women being strangled. However this evidence was deemed inadmissible, and was only revealed after his conviction.

 

[JudgeJudi]

We have a political channel in OZ, APEC, which gives a summary of each day's proceedings. The experts said this is yet another desperate attempt by the DT. If the DT wanted to introduce fight/flight it should have been brought it at the outset. They said you can't pull a rabbit out of a hat at this stage of the trial.

 

[kaos]

A hostile witness is one of your own witnesses that is giving unfavourable testimony to your client. This Professor is being deliberately evasive and obstructive, and in my opinion tailoring his evidence to suit OP's version. This has become the norm for the DT.

Ah, I was thinking hostile to the court :blushing:

Completely forgot there was no court tomorrow so the websleuths shutdown is convenient timing

 

[JudgeJudi]

The Professor is reminding me in many, many ways of Alyce Laviolette in the Jodi Arias trial - someone who goes on and on and on about matters that are totally irrelevant, and someone who is utterly biased.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Anyway, the expert is all over the place now .. so well done, Nel .. he's made this bloke look a total fool.

And also a total tool. Numerous meanings two of which are being pompous or infatuated with oneself or a person, typically male, who says or does things that cause you to give them a 'what-are-you-even-doing-here' look.

 

[Viper]

The Professor is reminding me in many, many ways of Alyce Laviolette in the Jodi Arias trial - someone who goes on and on and on about matters that are totally irrelevant, and someone who is utterly biased.

His testimony was pitiful. I think this may be his first expert testimony in a court of law, so he is a novice and is having to learn a life lesson. I have a feeling that he is hearing from friends and close colleagues right now and his demeanor come Monday morning will be quite different. Nel may be calculating on that happening by asking for an adjournment until Monday.

As I understand it, it is a rarity to have hired experts testify in SA. The defendants just cannot afford the luxury cost of ~ $1,800.00 US per day. Wollie probably only gets the opportunity a few times a year.

 

[JudgeJudi]

So OP moved cautiously while yelling loudly, "Get the F- out of my house"? Sort of defeats the purpose of approaching stealthily.

Just as absurd as an intruder going into the toilet. Just as absurd as that intruder slamming the door.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Well, I wouldn't agree that there should be a new law on the books for people with disabilities when they murder someone. If legs or limbs are disabled, they do still have their minds in most cases.

Quite a lot of disabled people would like to be able to get around as well as OP I'm sure.

On one hand, the defense wants to paint OP as paranoid where danger is concerned and as having a great deal of fear. On the other hand, it seems as if OP did not present himself as paranoid or fearful prior to the murder. He was Mr. Big, shooting a gun off in a restaurant and out the roof of a vehicle. He has shown quite a temper. Don't fearful and paranoid people go out of their way not to make anyone angry at them enough to hurt them?

IMO, this is all smoke and mirrors from OP and the defense to try to get a guilty man off. OP had it all, then became the ultimate spoiled famous person. Now he's lost it all because of his temper and his guns. He was judge, jury, and executioner for Reeva, but now he wants to be found innocent. He values his life; he just didn't value hers.

I hope Nel nails Derwin to the wall on Monday!

MOO

:goodpost:

I wish the PT would bring in someone to recount the fright/freeze/fight or flight response poor Reeva had in her last hour of life.

 

[kaos]

Not in a case like this, where there's no suggestion of a sexual element to the killing.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Joanna Yeates murder case, but the killer was found to have viewed violent *advertiser censored* featuring women being strangled. However this evidence was deemed inadmissible, and was only revealed after his conviction.

The Joanna Yeates murder was how I discovered this website. The forum I posted on wouldn't allow people to talk about the case the minute somebody had been charged (which of course is correct in UK law) but they wouldn't even allow for stuff that was already public domain. Plus of course there was an army of forum members who'd pontificate about the 'armchair detectives' whilst forgetting that they themselves had became 'armchair lawyers' when they'd recite the sub judice law.

My post about *advertiser censored* wasn't really intended to make out that there was a sexual element to the case just more of a general curiosity as to why it hadn't been made more salacious for trial purposes. If there was a chance that Reeva spotted his viewing history then it could have led to an argument giving the state a motive - which is still what's missing in this case.

 

[kaos]

:goodpost:

I wish the PT would bring in someone to recount the fright/freeze/fight response poor Reeva had in her last hour of life.

Excellent point It's practically criminal that Reeva is just referred to throughout this case as 'the deceased' when OP can have all manner of people testifying to how fantastic he is and even more criminal that her family have to listen to it all.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Since there was no intruder, any window banging would have been done by Reeva. Why would she bang the bathroom window open, rather than quietly slide it, unless she was in panic mode and saw it as the only way of escape?

And who's to say anyone opened it at all, only OP. Just something to make him hear a noise to use for his alibi. This what he said in his bail application.

"I noticed that the bathroom window was open" - no mention of hearing it slide open or hit the frame. How can he notice that it was open when he's said he already heard it open and hit the frame.

"I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I didn't see anyone in the bathroom". He's testified that he heard the toilet door slam, so it has to be closed, right?

"I heard movement inside the toilet." Intruders/burglars don't noisily open windows, bang them into the frame, enter a toilet and slam the door shut. It could only have been Reeva.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Perhaps Mr Nel is less interested in self-promotion than the Bugliosi's of this world and just goes about his job in a low-key professional manner. Not everyone wants to be a 'star' and that, to me, is a relief when compared to showboating American lawyers in televised trials. Personally I think Nel, on the whole, is brilliant at his job, as his conviction of the former head of Interpol would suggest.

Aside from that, having finally caught up with today's proceedings on you-tube, I'd like to think that whether we are in agreement as to Pistorius's guilt or not, we would all come together in judging Mr Oldwage to be a pompous ________ of the highest order.

I agree, Nel is great to watch and definitely grounded, probably far superior when court is in his own language.
I've not had one iota of difficulty in understanding his speech or his line of questioning. :dunno: Maybe, because I have Sth African and Kiwi friends and workmates. lol

RE: Mr Oldwage - definitely pompous and long winded :ziplip:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

And who's to say anyone opened it at all, only OP. Just something to make him hear a noise to use for his alibi. This what he said in his bail application.

"I noticed that the bathroom window was open" - no mention of hearing it slide open or hit the frame. How can he notice that it was open when he's said he already heard it open and hit the frame.

"I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I didn't see anyone in the bathroom". He's testified that he heard the toilet door slam, so it has to be closed, right?

"I heard movement inside the toilet." Intruders/burglars don't noisily open windows, bang them into the frame, enter a toilet and slam the door shut. It could only have been Reeva.

Great post.

My question to OP would be, isn't the toilet door always closed? It opens outwards, no?

 

[DILLIGAF]

Nel wanders around in his thinking, his voice is this sing-song frilly thing that is too quiet at times, he's always rocking on this heels and toes, nodding and shaking his head around before the witness answers like he's in the first throes of senescence. He is not an articulate speaker at all IMO. He does impress with his thinking on his feet at times, and he has had success dismantling some of the DT's witnesses. After all this time I have to say none of the three lawyers in this trial impress me. Where are the SA versions of F. Lee Bailey and Vincent Bugliosi?

I agree that Nel is occasionally inarticulate in the way he poses a question, but overall I think he's very impressive. Brilliant in fact.

Nel only looked like he was struggling (body language wise) with his XE of Prof D because Prof D was so evasive and defensive, with an inability to answer hypothetical questions that a so called expert should have no difficulty in answering. Prof D is so firmly entrenched in the pro-OP version of events that he is unable to remain objective. JMO