Trial Discussion Thread #6 - 14.03.13-14, Day 9-10

[Trooper]

impeachment of a witness as a personal description , is that what I understood you to state??

not a matter of law, or jurisprudence? since it is a legal term, I assumed you meant it was gazetted as a fact, and not just a personal choice of word as a descriptor..


'bang to rights.'. is this a legal term in general usage? or a personal descriptor?? or a cultural descriptor?

 

[Schuby]

I cant find anywhere where Judge Masipa has ruled Pieter Baba's testimony under impeachment..

be so kind as to direct me to your source.. I have gone thru the South African Jurisprudence site, but no mention of it there.. an impeachment of a witness is always gazetted immediately, maybe I am spelling Pieter Baba's name incorrectly??

Witness impeachment is not a ruling or some official decision, it is done by demonstrating that the witness' testimony is reasonably suspect. It is up to the jurors (or in this case judge) how heavily to weight the impeachment.

 

[Trooper]

I see.. can I equate this term impeachment , as suggested here, with the vernacular of a London Bobby rocking back on his heels and saying, 'Nah then, nah then, wot 'ave we 'ere?"

 

[Rumpole]

Watching trials.. "impeaching" witnesses is often referred to. I do not recall a Judge actually formally ruling that a witness has been "Impeached" but often testimony is shown to be wrong or changed. In a Jury situation they would give it less weight during deliberations. In this case I assume the Judge will have noted that the sequence Baba claims is wrong.

"Banged to rights" is often said of "Blaggers" when they are clearly guilty.. caught red-handed... ref. "Rumpole of the Bailey" TV series or UK crime related slang generally :floorlaugh:

 

[Schuby]

I see.. can I equate this term impeachment , as suggested here, with the vernacular of a London Bobby rocking back on his heels and saying, 'Nah then, nah then, wot 'ave we 'ere?"

This isn't esoteric legal jargon.

 

[zqtpie]

1 iPhone in the bathroom (black with the cover off making it appear as 2 phones) and 1 white iPhone found in the bedroom. There were other phones on his tv but these appear to be untouched and unrelated.

Did Reeva bring a phone to the loo? If so, that would suggest she needed help. Or, were the phone(s) just in there?

 

[Rumpole]

I see.. can I equate this term impeachment , as suggested here, with the vernacular of a London Bobby rocking back on his heels and saying, 'Nah then, nah then, wot 'ave we 'ere?"

Did you not hear Roux state:

"Nah then M'Lady, this 'er witness is telling pork pies. The bleedin' phone record chits prove it!"

Guess it was lost in the translation from Afrikaans :floorlaugh:

 

[Schuby]

Right, it's a gangsta street move that just happens to be popular with officers of the court.

 

[Schuby]

Witness impeachment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Schuby]

Did Reeva bring a phone to the loo? If so, that would suggest she needed help. Or, were the phone(s) just in there?

I'm unclear on that as well.

 

[Trooper]

If Carol, or Jassy writer.. who live in South Africa read this.. could you tell me , if, as Van Rensburg , for example, suddenly does without warning , speaks exquisite English, why he gives his testimony in Afrikaans?? is it a legal requirement?? a personal choice? a matter for the general public good?? a requirement of his employment??

I like it both ways, I hasten to add.. the translation segments are fascinating.

Nels, and Roux ask a question in English , only.. clearly Van Rensburg understands this perfectly.. he then waits for the question to be translated into Afrikaans before replying in Afrikaans..

is it a legal tactic as well?? or just plain clever?

 

[minor4th]

I'm unclear on that as well.

I don't think it's been said either way, but it has been disclosed (in the media) that nothing of value was found on the phones after they had Apple hack them. I take this to mean there were no incoming or outgoing texts around the relevant time period

 

[minor4th]

I see some confusion over which came first... the Baba or the Pistorius

From Roux's cross examination of Baba and the Security land-line phone records (Submitted into evidence, but not available to the public)

3:21:33AM
Oscar calls security - only crying is heard

3:22:05 AM
Baba PHONED Pistorius BACK and Pistorius indicated that he was fine

I hope that clarifies it.

OP called first.

The security mobile phone records were referenced and reviewed as well. And mention was made that Oscar's phone records corroborate the times - it was mentioned that the State provided the records and they did not dispute these times.

 

[Pisto_lius]

I think this could be a good (written) summary of the crime scene graphics shown in court on February 13, 2014 ?

Oscar Pistorius trial follows the trail of blood

http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-follows-the-trail-of-blood-20140314-hvin3.html
.
.

 

[Rumpole]

If Carol, or Jassy writer.. who live in South Africa read this.. could you tell me , if, as Van Rensburg , for example, suddenly does without warning , speaks exquisite English, why he gives his testimony in Afrikaans?? is it a legal requirement?? a personal choice? a matter for the general public good?? a requirement of his employment??

I like it both ways, I hasten to add.. the translation segments are fascinating.

Nels, and Roux ask a question in English , only.. clearly Van Rensburg understands this perfectly.. he then waits for the question to be translated into Afrikaans before replying in Afrikaans..

is it a legal tactic as well?? or just plain clever?

If find it a bit annoying that witnesses themselves resort to English to help the translator out. It's not just that the witness speak English.. but they speak it very well.. better than available translators it seems. And Roux seems to be a far better translator of Africaans to English than the translators.

 

[zqtpie]

if he was a man who was terrified of burglars, said he had been invaded before, got death threats , etc.. that kind of man wouldn't go to sleep calmly. especially if his bedroom window /door was open onto his balcony , as well.

noooo..


the kind of man who is overly security conscious, who locks his bedroom door , who keeps a baseball bat, a cricket bat, an air gun, a fully loaded Parabellum gun, loaded with Black Talon bullets under his bed at all times within instant reach goes round and checks every damn window and door on each floor 4 times, then lies down, then gets up and checks it all again.

A bloke who is paranoid about security would hardly lock his bedroom door.. then.. leave all the windows open.

Bathroom window, bedroom window/door ( sliding full length window)


nooooo..not likely..

I don't think he was fearful at all. He liked to cause fear.. ( speeding with passengers, firing a gun in a crowded restaurant, firing a gun in a travelling car with passengers, slamming doors on girls broken legs, threatening to break other chaps legs. screaming at people,in particular women.. ( Sams sister, sam herself ) ( Samanthas testimony ) .... pulling a gun on some stranger who happened to be driving into his own estate security gate, .....

just my opinion.

ITA. And if he was as paranoid as he'd like us to believe, why not have an alarm system or put bars on the windows. I just don't buy the burglar scenario. He did more damage to Reeva than a firing squad would've done. It's too big a stretch.
And Roux is very successful at taking every point and parsing it to kingdom come. It is not only distracting, but it causes your brain to lose its logical focus on the events and instead trip all over the place on these sidetracks he lays out, most of which are fictional what ifs.

 

[zqtpie]

it remains to be seen just who made the bigger mess of things, really. .Oscar or the police..

there are only two people who know exactly what happened that night in that house.. one is dead, and one is in the dock ....nothing can change that.. its highly unlikely an eye and ear witness will emerge who was hiding in the cupboard. No one on this earth is ever ever going to know exactly what happened.. Even Oscar cant know exactly what happened, because the event was between 2 people and one of those cant tell anyone exactly what happened to her, and why.

Oscar will forever hold on to his version . . Reeva is forever silenced.. murder most always happens privately.. between 2 people..

Obviously, The State of South Africa doesn't have confidence in Oscars version of events.. otherwise he wouldn't be on trial for murder..

So its up to the judge to adjudicate how much weight Oscars version holds in relation to the entirety of evidence presented against him.




Confidence in Oscars version is a choice.. it isn't compulsory.

Trooper, you always make such good points. Are you a lawyer?

 

[Pisto_lius]

Reeva Forgotten In Pistorius Courtroom Drama

The photographs were flashed up for just a few seconds, but the sudden glimpse of Reeva Steenkamp's body was enough to prompt gasps in the courtroom.

Even after all of the evidence about the manner of her death, the actual sight of her bloodied corpse - shown by mistake by the prosecution - was shocking for everyone in the court, but devastating for Reeva's friends and relatives.

Several were in tears as they rushed to leave. It was a careless error, but one which underlined just how traumatic murder trials are for the loved ones of the victim.

For two weeks now, a small group of Ms Steenkamp's friends and family has sat quietly in the courtroom, listening to all of the distressing details emerge.

[....]

We are getting a sense, through the evidence, of Pistorius' life and character, while Reeva Steenkamp - at least in the trial - has become simply the girlfriend he killed.

Those who knew her best must be desperate to talk about who she was and how much she mattered to them.

[....]

One the first day of this trial, Reeva's grieving mother, June, arrived in court after saying she just wanted to look Oscar Pistorius in the eyes and show him the pain he had caused. She has not returned.

Read more: http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/world/1230088/reeva-forgotten-in-pistorius-courtroom-drama/

.
.

 

[Trooper]

That's what Roux is paid the big bucks to do, ZQ , exactly that... it is often effective with a jury.

it has its own inbuilt problems, as a tactic with a judge only trial..Masipa has two assessors on the bench with her, who do the assistant sorting out of salient points , but they are not the same as a jury.. quite different. Which is why Roux seems to be given a lot of chain to run out with.. Nel will get that also when he will be x-examining Oscars witnesses..

 

[zqtpie]

I cant find anywhere where Judge Masipa has ruled Pieter Baba's testimony under impeachment..

be so kind as to direct me to your source.. I have gone thru the South African Jurisprudence site, but no mention of it there.. an impeachment of a witness is always gazetted immediately, maybe I am spelling Pieter Baba's name incorrectly??

I always thought that impeachment just meant that a witness has been shown to contradict him/herself when under cross examination.