Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

[soozieqtips]

What's all this ' eyes as a tape measure' stuff? Eyes as a light metre maybe? it is relevant because when investigating something involving whether Pistorius was on his prosthetic legs or not, neither expert, (Dixon and Vermeulen), used anything other than a man on his knees. If the first is going to be ridiculed for an unscientific approach, why not the latter? What's good for the goose and all that...

Because Dixon (the 'expert') was expected to be accurate when presenting 'facts' about what could be seen from the bathroom, and to use a model so much shorter than OP reeked of incompetence. Now if Vermeulen used a much shorter or a much longer bat in his test, I could see the comparison. But he didn't, and therefore I don't.

As you still haven't addressed the matter of Dixon and his eyes being 20cm shorter than the truth - I will assume you can't address it (because there's no logical reason for his incompetence) and I won't ask again.

 

[lithgow1]

Another comedic moment in a serious trial.

You have to find that funny aftermath?
It has to be near the top of the Top Ten Comedic moments in the trial.

-Vying with it has to be the example where the courthouse erupts in laughter when Oscar "I can't remember" re. who told him that STaylor and DFresco were colluding.
-The off camera agitation when the Oscar web data was to be admitted, despite strong opposition, was not exactly LOL but was amusing
- any of your crazy lady social worker moments
- Head of CS saying the disabled got a great deal in prison ( Sardonic)
- Number one spot, I reserve for Lady Masipa

My favourite was when Dixon was getting grilled about his less than stellar record keeping and Nel asked him about the results of some test and he replied that he had them there, somewhere in among the piles of paper he was shuffling, and then added, in a hoping to please tone, 'All nicely typed'. It was like a schoolkid with the headmaster.

 

[aftermath]

Another comedic moment in a serious trial.

You have to find that funny aftermath?
It has to be near the top of the Top Ten Comedic moments in the trial.

-Vying with it has to be the example where the courthouse erupts in laughter when Oscar "I can't remember" re. who told him that STaylor and DFresco were colluding.
-The off camera agitation when the Oscar web data was to be admitted, despite strong opposition, was not exactly LOL but was amusing
- any of your crazy lady social worker moments
- Head of CS saying the disabled got a great deal in prison ( Sardonic)
- Number one spot, I reserve for Lady Masipa

Funniest bit for me was Wolmarans and Masipa: 'Your jacket... Your Jacket!! '

 

[Trotterly]

Masipa also threw out expert testimony about Reeva having eaten at 1:00am, it was Professor Saymann versus a Nurse, Masipa went with the nurse. Incompetent.

I remember an anaesthetist but not a nurse. The accepted international authority on using stomach content as it was used in the trial (Knight) advises against it as it is unreliable. In a UK court that would have been the end of it.

 

[lithgow1]

Funniest bit for me was Wolmarans and Masipa: 'Your jacket... Your Jacket!! '

Yes that was good too. And Wolmarans reminiscing about the dearth of pork chops when he had dinner with Dixon. One expert having dinner with another during a trial is not funny, but the pork chop was.

 

[cottonweaver]

Funniest bit for me was Wolmarans and Masipa: 'Your jacket... Your Jacket!! '

Blimey - I actually missed that. Sounds amusing

 

[lithgow1]

Vermeulen left out a key photo of himself with the bat and a higher mark on the door, IIRC, so not sure if he tried to mislead.
He also chose to kneel to test the ' on stumps ' theory, not to find someone the right height to test it more accurately, or even to investigate the way a person without prosthetics might need to stand /swing a bat in order to break a door . Dixon chose to ask someone to kneel so he could take a photo...

Someone 20 cm shorter than the photo was meant to represent. But OK, you either see no problem with that (though Dixon was nervous when it started veering into misleading the court territory) or will just come back with some `But they did it too` response.

 

[Viper]

I remember an anaesthetist but not a nurse. The accepted international authority on using stomach content as it was used in the trial (Knight) advises against it as it is unreliable. In a UK court that would have been the end of it.

Hmm... Got a link?







IIRC she is a nurse anesthetist that tried to refute not only a medical doctor, who had performed thousands of autopsies, but also the medical books' documentation. Yea, I would have gone with Professor Saymann on that one.

 

[cottonweaver]

My favourite was when Dixon was getting grilled about his less than stellar record keeping and Nel asked him about the results of some test and he replied that he had them there, somewhere in among the piles of paper he was shuffling, and then added, in a hoping to please tone, 'All nicely typed'. It was like a schoolkid with the headmaster.

That's got to be up there too. Keep em coming..............
Poor Dixon, bet he is till regretting the day he took the Defence's coin on this one - out of his depth.
Wonder what Masipa is regretting- does she still read the news - JJ's link to that great article, 2 pages back, was very critical. Do people still bring it up at cocktail parties etc? LOL Or is it an unmentionable?!

 

[Trotterly]

Yes that was good too. And Wolmarans reminiscing about the dearth of pork chops when he had dinner with Dixon. One expert having dinner with another during a trial is not funny, but the pork chop was.

For me it has to be the well worn classic: Nel to Dixon "Are you a sound expert?"

Honourable mentions:

Roux trying to fill up court time with some extra questions to poor Van Rensburg who didn't know the toilet had a window (wouldn't like to be using the toilet in his house)

Van Rensburg wtte "I turned my back for 5 minutes and the watch was gone" - excellent Keystone Coppery.

 

[aftermath]

Because Dixon (the 'expert') was expected to be accurate when presenting 'facts' about what could be seen from the bathroom, and to use a model so much shorter than OP reeked of incompetence. Now if Vermeulen used a much shorter or a much longer bat in his test, I could see the comparison. But he didn't, and therefore I don't.

As you still haven't addressed the matter of Dixon and his eyes being 20cm shorter than the truth - I will assume you can't address it (because there's no logical reason for his incompetence) and I won't ask again.

Vermeulen (expert) also expected to be accurate though, right? Both men used a kneeling person instead of someone the same height /on stumps to test whatever they were investigating. Shortcut or incompetence.. Call it what you like.

 

[aftermath]

Someone 20 cm shorter than the photo was meant to represent. But OK, you either see no problem with that (though Dixon was nervous when it started veering into misleading the court territory) or will just come back with some `But they did it too` response.

Yes to the 'they did it too' and no to the 'you see no problem '

 

[cottonweaver]

In the light of many mistaken shootings of family members in SA, several of which have been mentioned here, I think that this would be good advice in any gun-owning home.

Or better still outlaw gun ownership altogether.

I will make sure I pass on your security and gun use advice even though it may end up reflecting badly on me- they may feel it is not a plausible scenario for them, as per my original post.

 

[Trotterly]

Hmm... Got a link?







IIRC she is a nurse anesthetist that tried to refute not only a medical doctor, who had performed thousands of autopsies, but also the medical books' documentation. Yea, I would have gone with Professor Saymann on that one.

BIB I'm on holiday and the thunderstorm in the resort has just finished so I'm off for the day but when I get back if no one else has posted it I'll be glad to find it. It came up during the "nurses" evidence IIRC.

 

[lithgow1]

Yes to the 'they did it too' and no to the 'you see no problem '

So do you mean you have no problem with Dixon`s 20 cm discrepancy? If so, it is ironic that you get riled over some exaggerations in tabloid newspapers but not exaggerations entered as evidence in a murder trial.

 

[aftermath]

So do you mean you have no problem with Dixon`s 20 cm discrepancy? If so, it is ironic that you get riled over some exaggerations in tabloid newspapers but not exaggerations entered as evidence in a murder trial.

I mean yes you were right that I came back with a 'they did it too ' comment, but no, you were wrong that I thought the 20cm height thing was okay.

 

[Trotterly]

Blimey - I actually missed that. Sounds amusing

The [email protected]

[video=youtube;lZi6DQaT8gk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZi6DQaT8gk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZi6DQaT8gk[/video]

 

[cottonweaver]

Even if it does get delayed until February 2016, I think Pistorius's release under correctional supervision will have been sorted before then.

Maybe you missed my reply to your post above.

So do you think OP will get the release go ahead from the panel meeting early september? Or just that he won't be still inside during the Appeal/conclusion of Appeal?

 

[cottonweaver]

For me it has to be the well worn classic: Nel to Dixon "Are you a sound expert?"

Honourable mentions:

Roux trying to fill up court time with some extra questions to poor Van Rensburg who didn't know the toilet had a window (wouldn't like to be using the toilet in his house)

Van Rensburg wtte "I turned my back for 5 minutes and the watch was gone" - excellent Keystone Coppery.

BIB - Aimee behind him, with her black eye mask and swag bag? I can picture that, she likes playing a role.

 

[aftermath]

Maybe you missed my reply to your post above.

So do you think OP will get the release go ahead from the panel meeting early september? Or just that he won't be still inside during the Appeal/conclusion of Appeal?

I think the panel will have met at a time the minister accepts as within the guidelines and will have once again given his Correctional Supervision placement the go ahead before a February appeal date.