Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[crasshopper]

For that to happen in front of the judge's face and with no objection, it must be permissible under the rules.

hmmm, don't know enough to dispute further...perhaps 'permissible' in SA but the SA commentary I watched thought it a detriment to the DT. Perhaps she will assign it little value when they write their decision. Possibly just as the judge allowed the inadmissible previous consistent statements of the social worker. ???

 

[steveml]

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.

BBM

You're entitled to disagree.

The facts are not hidden. The facts are what Wollie submitted in his final paper, how is anything before that fact? Was the states original claim that OP was on his prostheses the whole time fact? They changed it when they later discovered that it could not be possible. If I'm not mistaken, the state are now saying that their new claim is fact, not the old one.

If you write on a piece of paper that a dog has thee legs, and later realise that it has four, the only fact that can be construed is that your original thought was wrong.

These guys aren't stupid. Wollie's been in court loads of times, and he's being as crafty as any seasoned expert witness would be regarding his notes. Why? Because prosecution advocates such as Nel would attempt to rip his evidence apart with them. It's typical for expert witnesses to be evasive regarding notes and drafts, it's not unusual at all. Mangena wouldn't willingly make his drafts available to a defence advocate, and I don't blame him. You don't step into a shark pit smelling of blood.

I've presumed that most people understood why Ms Burger told the court she had destroyed her original notes. As a prosecution witness Ms Burger would have been advised not to submit these as they conflicted with her later testimony. A defence advocate would tear her apart with these.

I enjoyed the word 'destroyed'. Do you think she burnt them?

 

[BarnacleZA]

Welcome! Exciting to have you contribute.
Can I ask you a few questions since you seem to be somewhat of an insider to how things run?
1) Do you get the sense that Nel believes the state's case?

2) Do you get the sense that Roux believes OP's version?

3) Do you believe the police did indeed bungle the crime scene and moved things around (unknowingly) before the first set of photos were taken etc.?

Thanks!

1)
I think Nel accepts what the state was able to prove, but like me I think he believes there is even more that can not be proved. He would however accept a large section of Oscar's version, as it would already indicate murder. The purposeful aiming at the door, with another person behind the door, while he was in no immediate danger. While using four well directed shots, with ammunition which is likely to cause serious injuries or death.

2)
No. But this is a personal opinion. It seemed as though he started giving up hope after Dixon. Van Schalkwyk (whose testimony should be inadmissible) was an act of desperation. He seems to be resigned to the fact that he is merely there for damage limitation.

3)
I do not think the scene was substantially compromised. I do however know (I think it was) Motha messed up by handling the pistol. Not that it mattered, because the accused admitted that he used it. As with many high profile cases, however, they did mess up by allowing too many people onto the scene. The control was not what it should have been, but I don't think it had any real influence or will have any real influence later on.

 

[Tulessa]

Don't ever log off...loose your login or password....or move from your keyboard until this trial is over.
My goodness, reading your words is like reading an autobiography I just can't put down.:loveyou:

So give us your thoughts...How's Nel doing v. Roux?

Google Chrome saves your password. If not I would be screwed! :floorlaugh:

 

[Budgie]

Maybe one of OP's family bought it, through a CC or something so the purchase couldn't be traced...?

I read today they (lawyers, sellers and interested parties) wont announce who purchased until after the settlement date.

My reference: A sometimes ridiculous but internationally popular UK newspaper.

 

[crasshopper]

Thanks!

I've actually worked with both Barry and Gerrie on various different matters and was impressed by both.

Gerrie:
Was the first prosecutor I worked with that prepared PROPERLY. In one case I investigated, he flew down to Cape Town to observe the investigation process, which meant he had first-hand knowledge for questioning at trial. This is not very common in SA, because of the amount of cases handled. (All cases I did with Gerrie ended up as guilty verdicts.)

Gerrie's style of questioning is to place you on the back-foot first and then to get to the facts. If it appears as if you are recovering, he says he will come back to the point later and then uses something else to get you off-balance again. Once he is satisfied that you are sufficiently off-balance he returns to the previous line of questioning.

Barry:
Is normally also exceptionally well prepared. I however think he was on the back-foot from the start with Oscar's dodgy version. Interestingly all the cases I did with Barry ended up as not guilty... :tongue:

Barry's style is similar, but not exactly the same. When cross-examining he jumps around a lot between different points, which also means you never get into a comfort zone. But it is a little less planned than Gerrie's approach.

Obviously we are all thrilled to have you and I'm gald you didn't find that over the top, suddenly I questioned whether the lack of decorum might not be appreciated.

Too kind but I digress, must finish reading all your posts!

 

[toevlugsoord]

1)
I think Nel accepts what the state was able to prove, but like me I think he believes there is even more that can not be proved. He would however accept a large section of Oscar's version, as it would already indicate murder. The purposeful aiming at the door, with another person behind the door, while he was in no immediate danger. While using four well directed shots, with ammunition which is likely to cause serious injuries or death.

2)
No. But this is a personal opinion. It seemed as though he started giving up hope after Dixon. Van Schalkwyk (whose testimony should be inadmissible) was an act of desperation. He seems to be resigned to the fact that he is merely there for damage limitation.

3)
I do not think the scene was substantially compromised. I do however know (I think it was) Motha messed up by handling the pistol. Not that it mattered, because the accused admitted that he used it. As with many high profile cases, however, they did mess up by allowing too many people onto the scene. The control was not what it should have been, but I don't think it had any real influence or will have any real influence later on.

THANK YOU!!
So fascinating!

 

[crasshopper]

I read today they (lawyers, sellers and interested parties) wont announce who purchased until after the settlement date.

My reference: A sometimes ridiculous but internationally popular UK newspaper.

lol, the DM

 

[JudgeJudi]

Me too!! It's very frustrating. Each time it happens, I think "I must do something about this", but I don't. Thank you for taking the initiative.

And I've just totally stuffed up when I tried to multi-quote after someone was kind enough to tell me how to do it. The little grey cells aren't up to it I guess.

 

[BarnacleZA]

Have you worked with Oldwage? You may have read that I find his style difficult to stomach, ie I feel he is acting and there is absolutely no need to.

I haven't worked with him, but it is possible that he might have cross-examined me at some point in the past, or it is just something about him that irritates me...

I definitely don't think you are alone...

 

[toevlugsoord]

An interesting article to read whilst we wait for next week's proceedings to continue...this highlights OP's inconsistencies with Reeva breathing:

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistor...s-killer-lies-will-little-detail-nail-murder/

 

[JudgeJudi]

like "we're rooting for the prosecution"!!

:blushing: As Alf would say, "strewth", and I was trying to be polite. :floorlaugh:

 

[Interested Bystander]

hmmm, don't know enough to dispute further...perhaps 'permissible' in SA but the SA commentary I watched thought it a detriment to the DT. Perhaps she will assign it little value when they write their decision. Possibly just as the judge allowed the inadmissible previous consistent statements of the social worker. ???

I haven't worked with him, but it is possible that he might have cross-examined me at some point in the past, or it is just something about him that irritates me...

I definitely don't think you are alone...

Thank you.

You realise you are our star witness and will not be allowed to leave the dock, don't you?

 

[crasshopper]

In terms of Wollie. I also know him quite well... Also had a few beers with him over the years... hehehe... He was one of the best in his field, but I think age and and a soft heart got to him here...

In terms of the correct approach for the reports...
If he submitted any interim or final report it should be filed and available. If any new evidence comes out in trial that could influence his finding, he could always submit an addendum to the original report to indicate how new information could influence his findings. In some cases where I testified, some witnesses changed their original versions substantially during the trial, which means you have to redo all your calculations, as the boundary conditions change. It is however still wise to keep your original values, so that you can indicate to court what the influence of the changes are.

Personally, I don't think he tailored according to others, but I do know from the language and phrases used his report that it was checked by Barry Roux and the language used was Barry-speak, (as opposed to Oscar-speak).

1st bolded part- Thank you for clarifying proper SA procedure. There was some debate.

2nd bolded part- ROFL

Now one more question

Do you care to share whether you think OP is guilty and which conviction the evidence supports or what you feel is the greatest weakness of the state's case.

Myself, I'm convinced they argued, never went to bed and it unfolded from there, jmo.

No worries if you can't answer!

 

[supernovaNic]

Frank Chiziweni

So I'm looking at homes in the Silverwood Estates in Pretoria and here are some of the descriptions I found for staff quarters:

Outbuilding 1 Can easily be converted to a Flatlet with own entrance or become part of Study area for office setup Staff Quarters/Domestic Rooms

Outbuilding 1 Flatlet, Staff Quarters/Domestic Rooms, Domestic Bathroom

Just so curious if Frank's living area was completely separated from the house, or if shares a wall within Oscar's home, or is off the kitchen, etc.

None of the pictures I saw showed the staff quarters so I can't figure out where they are located on the listings either.

Has anyone discovered more on Frank?

 

[Nausicaa]

The accused participated in the shot tests???????

Tell me it isn't so.

Thank you.

You realise you are our star witness and will not be allowed to leave the dock, don't you?

Don't worry barnacle, there's an open plan toilet available in court if you should need it.

 

[Nausicaa]

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.

And you posted this twice to prove that you too are absent-minded and therefore a genius ?

 

[Interested Bystander]

1st bolded part- Thank you for clarifying proper SA procedure. There was some debate.

2nd bolded part- ROFL

I think Wollie intimated most of his reports were oral. That seemed a little odd though I don't think it was done to intentionally not provide evidence that may not work for the Defence. He just doesn't seem the type to lie. However he surely has to have copious notes. One good thing about this TV trial is that it will show up any warts in the system which can then be excised. I don't doubt, if we had TV trials in the UK, it would do the same here!

 

[crasshopper]

Thank you.

You realise you are our star witness and will not be allowed to leave the dock, don't you?

Barnacle has no idea what we have in store!!! (or perhaps he does)

 

[steveml]

It was a bullet fragment as far as I understand, not a whole bullet.

Fired bullets are often not whole when discovered. It was a large fragment.

OK, that's acceptable.