Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[christee]

Jude Masipa is such a tiny woman. Does she have arthritis I wonder?

 

[jay-jay]

Oh at long last I've got my feed back and have just managed to catch Mangena spraying his beams ... that's blimmin good that is ..!

 

[ColonelMustard]

oh, how sweet was that? Great huge security guard gently holding judge's hand...

.. +1 ..

 

[zwiebel]

Well, they are showing lasers beamed thru door but it's hard to see as there are so many people crowded around.

 

[Warren Levine]

COOL .. mist lights up laser.

Other way around. Laser lights up tiny droplets of mist.

 

[Giles]

This was fun.

 

[lisasalinger]

Cool. I love a good court field trip.

Mangena's laser is nice

 

[Freya1977]

What is Cpt M spraying outta that can?

It lets the laser beams become more visible

 

[zwiebel]

Does judge M have mobility issues? Is that why guard holds her hand?

 

[supernovaNic]

What? Why is that guy helping Mi Lady walk? I think she might have bad arthritis.

 

[Interested Bystander]

My understanding was it would only breach conditions if she is/was on the state's witness list but she's not. Bit confused but got the impression there were two lists: she was on one (maybe the 100+) but not other. Shame really - would serve him right.

She was on the Prosecution witness list. The Defence did not provide a witness list. On the legal round table (when this happened) they pointed out that as she was not called that there is nothing that can be done about it as she did not actually become a witness. The court has also indicated that it is not interested. Some posters have asked if Nel reopens the case could this comment then become a problem for OP. He is not allowed to "interfere" with witnesses. If he does he could have his bail rescinded or extra punishment.

IMO (I have no legal background) unless they actually call her, which I don't think the court will do (why would they ?), technically he has committed no 'crime' but it was very uncalled for and unpleasant but typical behaviour of what we have come to expect from OP.

 

[lithgow1]

Does judge M have mobility issues? Is that why guard holds her hand?

Not generally I don't think - I read somewhere her hobbies include yoga, gardening and dancing. Maybe she did an over-enthusiastic twirl?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Good on you Roux, agreeing with the laser tests.

 

[zwiebel]

Roux interjects with Nel to say hole B aligned with E. He stresses that so obviously important to defence.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Does judge M have mobility issues? Is that why guard holds her hand?

My guess, mobility and balance.

 

[Val1]

Wait a minute. Did Wolmarans just say that one of the bullets were fired AFTER the door was broken?

That's what I thought I heard too...

 

[zwiebel]

N: Is this the only report you furnished?

W: There is also an ongoing report.....first time I arrived on crime scene it was absolutely - it was not in the same condition anymore. As, as I get more info, I amend my report.

 

[AlexUK]

My guess, mobility and balance.

And lots a cables and wires littering the floor.....

 

[Interested Bystander]

Why can't these witnesses just answer 'yes' instead of repeating the question. It would save a lot of time and be far less boring.

 

[BritsKate]

The purpose of an expert is to assist the court. Not to testify for the defense or for the prosecution.



So, in theory, this means that an expert must give all information he gathers to the court. No matter who is paying. Wolmarans is giving his expert testimony. Without prejudice. Honestly. His peers, and everyone who's worked with him, confirm Wollie has a lot of integrity. And he is very experienced. Those two things, honesty and experience, give him a certain cachet, not only nationally in South Africa, but also internationally. (Yes, his English is horrible. His grammar. The way he speaks is boring. But that does not mean he's stupid.)



I'm starting to wonder if the delay was because the defense was looking for someone else to present Wolmarans' testimony in court. Someone like Dixon who was perhaps prepared to put the evidence in a more positive light for the defense.

I think what experts are supposed to do and what they may do can be very different things. There have been expert witnesses who have apparently been willing to risk both their careers and reputations to mislead the court about evidence that could be damaging to the defence. One of the better known examples of this is forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee. It was ruled that Lee intentionally withheld evidence from prosecutors in the Phil Spector case. Well before that case, Lee was one of very few such scientists to be a household name.

I'm not stating, of course, that this is true of Wollmarans and much appreciate your interpretation - I really have no doubt his reputation precedes him - just pointing out that there are indeed a few bad apples in a bushel of (likely) ethically sound expert witnesses. Some people, even professionals deemed by the court to be worthy of an 'expert witness tag', really will sell their testimony to the highest bidder or the case with the most air time.

All MOO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.