Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Val1]

Please folks... absent mindedness does not mean a lesser intelligence. I cannot believe how many posters are mistaking the term for this. It is associated with genius more often, e.g. Einstein, Da Vinci, Aquinas, Galileo, etc. and in recent times serious studies are showing that absent minded and wandering or daydreaming kids, the ones that in my days that were constantly being called up in class all the time, have actually more intelligence.

Imo, I think the part of the problem is we as a society tend to think more in extremes because that's what we see in the media, ie.savant vs imbecile, both could arguably be considered autistic to the layman. It's only been in recent years where the levels of intelligence in all three of those examples are becoming better recognized through advocates demanding better education for both their patients/loved ones and the general public to help those persons cope with life past their support systems lives(parents dying and leaving an adult with ie. Down's or a more severe level of autism on their own). It's like many still think all jocks/blondes are stupid and all geeks/nerds are genius....

 

[G.bng]

Yes, but, iirc and I may not, in Mangena's scenario Reeva's arm was bent and lifted, as if protecting her head when hit. And if the head shot had preceded the shot into and out of her arm, he said the arm would have dropped immediately.

IIRC that was after he said he had not been able to determine whether the head or arm shot came first. IIRC also, Mangena didn't put forward the bang...bang,bang,bang scenario either which came from a suggestion by Nel who obviously got it from Burger, and also if I IIRC Burger first testified to only to four straight bangs one after the other, as I believe was also in her statement to the police, and it was only well into giving testimony that she added the gap between first and second shots which Roux I think tried to bring her down on for obvious reasons.

 

[G.bng]

I'm not suggesting she was a great witness. I'm just saying I suspect the defense wanted a witness who could emphasize what was possible over what was probable, to put it in Nel-like terms.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

That is what the raising a reasonable doubt or a reasonable alternative possibility is all about... and whether she raised one will be Masipa's and assistants' call. JMHO

 

[Val1]

IIRC that was after he said he had not been able to determine whether the head or arm shot came first. IIRC also, Mangena didn't put forward the bang...bang,bang,bang scenario either which came from a suggestion by Nel who obviously got it from Burger, and also if I IIRC Burger first testified to only to four straight bangs one after the other, as I believe was also in her statement to the police, and it was only well into giving testimony that she added the gap between first and second shots which Roux I think tried to bring her down on for obvious reasons.

As long as one of the bullets between the hip and the headshot was the one that "missed" and hit the toilet wall, does it really matter? The missed shot all on its own provides a time gap that would possibly allow time for both a final scream from RS and falling back onto the rack, correct?

 

[atthelake]

Based on all your VIVID descriptions, I just had to watch the specific youtube of him in the toilet today. This youtube begins as he enters the toilet. 32 minutes long https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPZua-N5Kj8

 

[Viper]

NO. You are so so so mistaken. Absent-mindedness has absolutely nothing to do with mental capabilities. Indeed to the contrary it is can often be associated with genius; to name but a mere few, Einstein, Newton, Aquinas, and a special favourite of mine, Leonardo da Vinci. All recognised geniuses in their fields yet notorious for being extremely absent minded. So no need to rush to defend Nel from me as he certainly does not need it.

Honestly Gbng, if you wanted to have a conversation about why you believe (all, most, many, some, a few?) absent minded people are geniuses, why did you not simply do that? Instead you labeled Mr. Nel with the stigma of having that condition, and then ran along telling the people that had replied to you that they are small minded people, they are wrong, and you had actually meant it all as a compliment to Mr. Nel. Shaking my head...

 

[minor4th]

Sorry to ask this, but I missed most of W's testimony today. Can someone give a quick unbiased summary please ?

 

[soozieqtips]

Sorry to ask this, but I missed most of W's testimony today. Can someone give a quick unbiased summary please ?

Did you check the thread for an unbiased summary?

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Just found this:

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

Lithgow

Thank you for this excellent link. IMO all Websleuthers should watch this.

In it, Former SA High Court Judge Chris Greenland discusses, with great clarity, the relevance of expert witnesses testimonies to the case.

In his interview, Judge Greenland covers a number of the points that have been haggled over ad nauseam on this site. I'm going to stick with the judge's interpretation of SA law.

 

[Val1]

I'd like to know what..... if anything ....did OP do that night/morning that was remotely 'resonable'

You mean besides calling a lawyer first thing and then keeping his mouth shut after feeding everyone and their dog his version?

 

[katydid23]

I think the notes issue isn't of great importance. All it really does is give Nel the opportunity to ask why Wollie changed his findings. My answer to that would be why not? Surely it should be considered entirely correct that if you later find some information that contradicts your initial findings, you should be prepared to re-examine your work. It would be far worse if Wollie was stubborn and just decided to contradict Captain Mangena's evidence for the sake of it.

The only couple of criticisms I have about today's testimony are the gun firing problem and the hanging of the bathroom door.

It's really not good enough for a ballistics expert to arrange a gun/sound test and not have a backup firearm or enough bullets. It's a murder charge we're dealing with, not a shoplifting offence. It should also not be too difficult to locate a competent door fitter to enable you to recreate a test. We've seen a fair bit of shoddy investigative and forensic work from both sides during this trial.

Overall I thought Wollie did fine today, despite his tinnitus, bad back and language difficulty. It was also a nice touch from him to talk about his respect for Captain Mangena.

BBM

I disagree. If you change your expert findings, be prepared to present it to the court. Why not? If as you say, it is normal to do so why HIDE THE FACTS?

Nothing wrong with making revisions, but it should be documented. imo

And how can it be said that it is fine NOT to hand in a written ballistics report?

Is it really something you do verbally? :doh:

I did like Woolie very much and I do think he has integrity and great knowledge.

 

[Really?]

Sorry to ask this, but I missed most of W's testimony today. Can someone give a quick unbiased summary please ?

W is very smart and articulate. Never one to stammer he laid out OP's defense as we all knew it to be.....garbage.

 

[JuneBug67]

"Urbane Roux". I LOL'd a little. I find him more obsequious than urbane. I've warmed to him some though over the course of the trial. Oldwage is just ugh. I veer between being fine with Roux and being annoyed by some of his approaches, which I sometimes find transparently manipulative and not that effective.

Reposting this as at one point I meant to say Nel and said Roux. Lol. Should have read:

"Urbane Roux". I LOL'd a little. I find him more obsequious than urbane. I've warmed to him some though over the course of the trial. Oldwage is just ugh. I veer between being fine with Nel and being annoyed by some of his approaches, which I sometimes find transparently manipulative and not that effective.

 

[lithgow1]

BBM

I disagree. If you change your expert findings, be prepared to present it to the court. Why not? If as you say, it is normal to do so why HIDE THE FACTS?

Nothing wrong with making revisions, but it should be documented. imo

And how can it be said that it is fine NOT to hand in a written ballistics report?

Is it really something you do verbally? :doh:

I did like Woolie very much and I do think he has integrity and great knowledge.

I agree with your disagreement! I liked Wolmerans too and respect his knowledge and standing but it surprised me a lot that he did not have all that material to hand, especially the earlier report you would have thought he'd prepared before the trial actually got going. Was it the judge on Domani who said that the whole thing gives a bit of a stink to the evidence? Someone did. I also saw some other pundit discussing the issue of Roux not putting the state's version to Mangena during his cross of him and said this would be the normal procedure/courtesy and it was bad of the defence to not stay in line with that. Anyway it's gotta be of some importance - it was one of the first things Nel went to and he kept coming back to it.

On a personal level I liked that they all knew each other from their pasts and the little acknowledgments of that. When Wolmerans first started saying how Mangena called him 'uncle' and he called him 'son' I thought where the ... is this going but by the end I almost found it moving. That and Nel's calling him Captain a few times in error because of past trials were 'nice touches' IMO.

 

[Viper]

Reposting this as at one point I meant to say Nel and said Roux. Lol. Should have read:

"Urbane Roux". I LOL'd a little. I find him more obsequious than urbane. I've warmed to him some though over the course of the trial. Oldwage is just ugh. I veer between being fine with Nel and being annoyed by some of his approaches, which I sometimes find transparently manipulative and not that effective.

Thanks, it makes much more sense now. :facepalm:

 

[lithgow1]

Lithgow

Thank you for this excellent link. IMO all Websleuthers should watch this.

In it, Former SA High Court Judge Chris Greenland discusses, with great clarity, the relevance of expert witnesses testimonies to the case.

In his interview, Judge Greenland covers a number of the points that have been haggled over ad nauseam on this site. I'm going to stick with the judge's interpretation of SA law.

Yes, I was very pleased to stumble on that - below is the link to the channel for anyone who wants to look at older panels too.

What struck me the most about what the judge said, and it pleased me no end I will admit, is when he essentialy said that it's not so simple that if you shoot someone but can come up with a plausible or even just possible story about how it happened, that will be enough get you off. To get to there the judge and assessors have to believe Pistorius and 'buy his story' and the judge explaining all that was an education and morale booster. I was unsure about if they find his story to be possible but highly unlikely are they required to rule in favour of it and it would seem they don't if essentially they don't believe OP. I think the odds of at least two out of three not buying it are good - personally I'm tipping a hat-trick - though of course we'll have to wait and see.

He also stressed the importance of the four independent witnesses who heard screams - notice how he said 'Reeva's screams' and had to be reminded 'a woman's screams'. But yep, he's very interesting to listen to.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHTN50mKYmmeg1-AHBURUsg

 

[Fuskier]

Just watched Oscar Trial on channel 199, The round table hosted by David O'sullivan. IMO Judge Greenland's comment in Round Table No: 11 could be applied to Wolly's evidence yesterday. oscar trial legal panel 11 - YouTube

 

[atthelake]

She certainly has rheumatoid arthritis. One has only to look at her hands to see that. RA is a systemic autoimmune disease BUT it is quite possible that she has suffered something like polio too. As you say it used to be much more common. I feel for her. If she has severe RA, sitting in court all day will be ghastly for her as it is important to keep on the move. One gets very, very, stiff when sitting for hours.

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

 

[katydid23]

I agree with your disagreement! I liked Wolmerans too and respect his knowledge and standing but it surprised me a lot that he did not have all that material to hand, especially the earlier report you would have thought he'd prepared before the trial actually got going. Was it the judge on Domani who said that the whole thing gives a bit of a stink to the evidence? Someone did. I also saw some other pundit discussing the issue of Roux not putting the state's version to Mangena during his cross of him and said this would be the normal procedure/courtesy and it was bad of the defence to not stay in line with that. Anyway it's gotta be of some importance - it was one of the first things Nel went to and he kept coming back to it.

On a personal level I liked that they all knew each other from their pasts and the little acknowledgments of that. When Wolmerans first started saying how Mangena called him 'uncle' and he called him 'son' I thought where the ... is this going but by the end I almost found it moving. That and Nel's calling him Captain a few times in error because of past trials were 'nice touches' IMO.

BBM

That 'uncle' thing was very interesting because Stander quoted OP as calling him OOm, or uncle, when he called that morning to ask him to hurry over. And some said that meant they were close, and others here said it didnt mean anything to be called that. But looks like Woolie did take it as some kind of compliment.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Usually they do give each other the information out of courtesy.
They way I understand it, and I may be wrong, is that one of the reasons Nel charged Oscar with premeditated murder, or rather murder under sections 6 and 51, is that under section 6 you do not get bail unless there are exceptional circumstances (medical reasons) or if you give a statement explaining what happened.

Oscar refused to talk to the police before the bail hearing. But in order to be considered for bail under a section 6 murder charge, he decided to give a statement. And now he's bound to that statement and he can't change his story too much. Clever of Nel.

No, this isn't done out of courtesy, it's the law. The provision of evidence is called "discovery" and both the prosecution and defence are entitled to certain evidence, but it's not the same for each side. This article spells it all clearly. It seems like a US article but I think it would be pretty universal.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/criminal-law-right-to-evidence-disclosure.html