Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[ColonelMustard]

I heard woolie say that too Gryffindor but last year if I remember right, Mr Perumal who also assessed the crime scene said it was he who, after seeing a mark on the toilet wall, realised that a spent bullet was in the toilet bowl and suggested it be retrieved.

So, Wollie was tasked with fishing it out.

The man has a bad back, a huge stomach, and he can barely breathe.

He probably leaned over, passed out, and his hand just fell into it.

 

[Greater Than]

This to me is an obvious thing. If W had copies of all of the various reports that he had compiled with numerous changes (tailoring) in each consecutive one, he would be challenged by Nel to turn them over to the PT and they would be used to discredit his testimony the very next day. W is giving Nel and his team access to his notes and photo this afternoon, so he likely did just keep editing that original report and that is the only one he has saved on his computer.

In the US I am not aware that the same thing could be done to a defense witness, although maybe it can. However, I do know that in both countries the prosecution is obligated to give a copy of every single scrap of paper that has even a single word on it about the PTs investigation. That is why prosecutors meeting with a witness only allow one person in the meeting to take down notes, so that there are not other notes that can be used to discredit what information was discussed and gathered.

In the US depositions are conducted and can be used to impeach the witness' testimony if it differs! This is crazy to me that an experienced expert witness is admitting to modifying his report after hearing other testimony.

 

[ColonelMustard]

As the case goes on it seems the defence witnesses are trying not to stray too much out of their field of expertise....... Can't think why !

I'm not sure that's very hard to do because none of them seem to have any expertise. Ha! They're more like the Keystone Kops.

 

[Greater Than]

I read somewhere that OP's grafts/pads at the bottom of his stumps, have dislodged or something as he has got older and that he needs an operation to fix them.

Do you have a link?

ETA - Disregard. I just saw MsMarple's post.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Thanks for this. It really made me laugh. If anyone didn't see the above earlier it is worth a quick read!

:floorlaugh:

Oh, zwiebel! I am catching up from having missed just about all of this morning because I had an appointment. I read this sentence and just burst out laughing. If a person reading this had no idea there was a mock toilet room for the trial, they would be saying "WTH!!" That statement was priceless!

MOO

I think Wollie is a harmless old coot who probably jokes around a lot in "real life." Jolly, kind, simple... I'd probably like him a lot. Dixon, I'd end up slapping after about 3 minutes.

 

[ColonelMustard]

I read somewhere that OP's grafts/pads at the bottom of his stumps, have dislodged or something as he has got older and that he needs an operation to fix them.

Somewhere somebody mentioned a callous that was causing him some trouble.

If it were me, I'd ask them to shove some memory foam up in there before they stitched me up.

 

[ColonelMustard]

He called Frankie to help him clean up his mess.

Reasonable for most people or reasonable for a coward focused only on covering his own a$$?


(To be fair, on occasion in my life I've been less than proud of some of my own decisions. Smaller stuff than murder, but still. I joke around here a lot, here, many of us do. It's fun and it feels good to laugh - and think. But from every perspective of every role of every player in the this Greek tragedy - whether Reeva's parents, her family and friends, Oscar's family and friends, Reeva herself and even OP, I never lose sight of one thing: there but for the grace of god go I. )

 

[DILLIGAF]

How can anyone with half a brain not see the obvious tailoring of evidence
Wolmaran's can't remember if he handed over a report prior to the trial?, really?.
Getting all cagey and defensive about his first report.
Give me strength.

Hi all. Long time lurker, first time poster here.eace:

Just on Wolmerans. I don't get the impression that he's tailored his evidence and he has come across as fairly honest imho. He didn't do the DT any favours by saying anything could have happened behind the door for example.
He has accepted many of Mangena's conclusions and has readily admitted he is not an expert in certain areas, like sounds.
He does however come across as being fairly disorganised as far as report writing and record keeping during his investigations. That may explain why he only has the one report, his final report. It does seem a bit odd for an expert working for the defence though. Surely they would request regular updates during his investigations.
p.s. I know the defence case is still ongoing, but i really think they're struggling to find good witnesses. AFAIR none of them have successfully disproved the claims made by the prosecution. Roux had promised they would but it hasn't happened. If we've already seen the DT's best witnesses, its not looking good for OP.
JMO

 

[ColonelMustard]

Ooooh errrrr :blushing:

Love when Mangena is trying to stifle a laugh. Noticed when one of the women were doing their impersonations of OP crying - he was sucking in his cheeks and no doubt biting his lip to stop himself LOL literally! I noticed again today a few times when the ballistics guy was on the stand where he was trying not to laugh. He's got such a lovely smile... I think I might be in love

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

 

[ColonelMustard]

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.

That's really clever!!

 

[ColonelMustard]

Haha that judge isn't buying that OP was screaming like a woman either

THANKS for this!!! Gobsmacked... Ha!!

 

[ColonelMustard]

As far as I'm aware neither of these guys are on trial, they can do whatever they please together as long as it's legal. It's an issue as to whether it's the done thing, but that's all.

Captain Mangena and Wollie are both ballistics experts. They may disagree on trajectories, shot sequence and bullet impact, however unless Wollie has magically moved the bullet-holes in the door I haven't a clue what evidence he can possibly have tailored.

Check out LithGow1's link at "I just found this." The Big Kahuna judge being interviewed has LOTS to say about the info in your 1st paragraph, none of which is good, about those two tossing back a few together.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Hi Judgejudi,

Click onto the multi-quote feature (next to the quote feature), it will turn orange. Scroll down to the next post you want to quote, then click onto the quote feature only, just like you normally do when quoting a post. The reply box will appear with the two posts you quoted. Good luck.

Thank you so much for that.

 

[Karmady]

In the US depositions are conducted and can be used to impeach the witness' testimony if it differs! This is crazy to me that an experienced expert witness is admitting to modifying his report after hearing other testimony.

There are plenty of ways in the US to avoid disclosing multiple drafts of an expert report. Happens all the time. jmo

 

[ColonelMustard]

Just found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFM3d6sA-SY

So, Judge Greenland(?) in his interview here says that he can't figure out what the value is of all these goings on about bullet trajectories, etc. What's the evidentiary value?


I thought the reason has to do with where OP was standing as he shot. If he was basically in one place it says one thing but if he was moving around in an arc to get a better shot at her each time, it would be significant.

Can anyone shine a laser beam on this, for me?

 

[Karmady]

Does anyone know anything about this issue of the crickets in the background during the outdoor gun and bat sound tests, where the prosecution are claiming (or moving towards claimimg) that the insects are louder in the bat test, suggesting it's been amplified? Any entomologists or music producers here? If all I hear is crickets I'll take it that's a no.

Was just relistening to the judge's reaction to the social worker's evidence:

'I'm dumbfounded, I'm confounded and I'm bemused, in fact gobsmacked'.

did the judge seriously say that?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Sorry all. I attached the Colonel's quote # 874 here re what a good guy Nel is, and said "I agree with every word you say" for which the Thanks below were for, but in practising my double quotes I've stuffed up badly and inadvertently deleted it. I still can't get the knack for doing this.

 

[crasshopper]

snipped


(To be fair, on occasion in my life I've been less than proud of some of my own decisions. Smaller stuff than murder, but still. I joke around here a lot, here, many of us do. It's fun and it feels good to laugh - and think. But from every perspective of every role of every player in the this Greek tragedy - whether Reeva's parents, her family and friends, Oscar's family and friends, Reeva herself and even OP, I never lose sight of one thing: there but for the grace of god go I. )

Don't apologize,
Your Interjections of well placed levity highlighting the preposterous and incongruous is obviously well meaning. Doesn't even approach the macabre of gallows humor or that of the trenches.

Thank you for the many chuckles.

 

[katydid23]

Hi all. Long time lurker, first time poster here.eace:

Just on Wolmerans. I don't get the impression that he's tailored his evidence and he has come across as fairly honest imho. He didn't do the DT any favours by saying anything could have happened behind the door for example.
He has accepted many of Mangena's conclusions and has readily admitted he is not an expert in certain areas, like sounds.
He does however come across as being fairly disorganised as far as report writing and record keeping during his investigations. That may explain why he only has the one report, his final report. It does seem a bit odd for an expert working for the defence though. Surely they would request regular updates during his investigations.
p.s. I know the defence case is still ongoing, but i really think they're struggling to find good witnesses. AFAIR none of them have successfully disproved the claims made by the prosecution. Roux had promised they would but it hasn't happened. If we've already seen the DT's best witnesses, its not looking good for OP.
JMO

Great first post. :fireworks: :welcome: :fireworks:

 

[Interested Bystander]

BBM as we have all learned from following trials :tantrum:

:floorlaugh: How I agree!