Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Nel is fighting Reeva's case, I don't think he's horrible and let's face it as awful as it sounds, it's theatre also.

Funky I would be too!

I also agree that Dixon is being evasive now. Which again, is a bit worrying from an expert.

Dixon seemed nervous and vague

I wonder how well Nel and Dixon know each other? Dixon worked for the Police forensics lab for 18 years so he and Nel used to be on the "same side". (In a interview Dixon said he nearly didn't take this brief because you tend to be "on one side or the other" ie always work for the prosecution or the defence.)

"And he says the fibres on the door was from the sock, without actually examining the sock. It was on the sole of the prosthesis, therefore, he deduced it was the sock.

That was stupid. It's not the action of a professional.

The fibres on the door and the prosthesis may have been transferred to the door at any night."

I've not been able to watch it but, seriously?! He is their expert? Blimey.

Yesterday I was all convinced by his evidence but now I am just bemused by why they would have used him.

So the expert really isn't an expert then?

Nel is trying to show not, but I really don't think we can assume that - if the defence were presenting his credentials we'd be all wow, he's a total genius.

So why didn't they give him the sock to examine? His deduction is fairly reasonable BUT they should have known it was something Nel would pick on. Nel could point out that OP might have kicked the door before that night.

Dixon was very clear yesterday about his credentials and expertise. He's also worked with the FBI so I don't think he can be crap. He also said that other people were involved in lots of the testing so I wonder if they are testifying as well or just making written statements?

voice - I think the OP went off piste on his own account. It is the most awful feeling when a witness does that as there is nothing you can do.

Re the coaching, you can't really do that as:

1. The evidence has to be the witnesses own. Quite often, I've had managers say to me "tell me what you need me to say" when taking statements for the employment tribunal and I've had to say that they need to just tell me the truth, in their own words.

1. Particularly in criminal cases, if a witness says they are guilty and/or are going to lie, then you need to withdraw from acting. So, OP's lawyers and Barry Roux will have simply asked OP what happened (never ask the accused if they are guilty as, if they say they are, but plan to plead not guilty, you would need to withdraw immediately!). They will then advise him on the basis of that.

What you can do, is test the witness when preparing g for the hearing by saying that you are playing devil's advocate and what would he say if asked by the other side....? That is allowed and is fine.

In all honesty, no offence to the general public as I would be the same, there is no point in coaching, as (under stress in the witness box) a witness will just fall apart as they won't be as used to the whole process as the lawyer questioning them

People telling the truth can have slips etc but as they have a pretty clear narrative, they tend to get back on track fairly quickly and stick to the same themes

One thing I do think is that when I am preparing witnesses, I will explain to them what we are trying to achieve and how their evidence fits in. So, I would explain that we are defending a claim of unfair dismissal. The legal basis is x and their statement is of assistance as it demonstrates y. I will explain exactly what tests the judge will be applying. I will keep explaining until I am sure the witness understands. It is a horrible experience giving evidence even at a Tribunal. Really stressful and it's important that the witness knows what we are trying to do (based on their evidence not asking them to change it to fit in) so it's important that they have the basic outline to guide them and to self-refer to when being cross examined.

I don't get the feeling that OP's lawyers have done that enough. I don't think he really, truly understood his defences to each charge inside out and how they all inter-related. Coupled with the fact that he actually isn't telling the whole truth so can't keep up with Gerrie Nel, this has been the result

So why didn't they give him the sock to examine?

From what I can make out; because he didn't ask for it.

Nel asked a number of times whether he had the sock in his hand at any point at all. He evaded, he said he saw it, and eventually that it wasn't in his hand.

I would think, if he had asked and they had not given it to him, he would say; I asked to see the sock so that I could determine the fibres, but I was refused.

That would mean that he had no option but to deduce that the fibres were from the sock which he had seen Pistorius wearing, which, well, fair enough.

Goblin, do you think that they would have advised OP to maybe to plead guilty to a lesser charge? I read somewhere the other day that OP should have pleaded guilty to CH, shown absolute remorse then it would have been much harder for Nel to prove the (Second degree) murder charge, therefore he probably would have recieved a much lower sentence. That by pleading not guilty to all charges will make it much harder for Roux to plead deminished responsibility at sentencing? Is that making any sense?

oh dear, it's back on and I am watching now and Nel is definitely doing a very good job of discrediting his ability.

Yes. So he wants us to compare the volume of sounds with no decibel meter having been used.

In the same way that he wants us to understand it was fully dark via a measure of his own eyes.

I saw an article (the observer maybe?) that briefly touched upon the personas of Roux and Nel in the courtroom - they are both very private, reserved men and it's never a personal thing in the courtroom, it's just their job.

Journos have said they've seen them share a word or two outside of the courtroom and although I imagine sometimes it may feel a bit awkward, they are both just doing their jobs. If Nel doesn't go hard on Roux's witnesses, then his point isn't made and vice versa. If I were a member of the Steenkamp or Pistorius family, I would expect my legal team to fight damn hard.

WTAF?

What was played to court, the gun sounding, was a combination of a number of recordings. The gun kept jamming, so he shot once. The tests were repeated last week (of the gun), which he knew about but didn't attend.

What he identified on the stand was a gun being shot being recorded at a time when they weren't fired.

Re the coaching, you can't really do that as:

I'm glad you wrote that Gobbolinothewitchscat since it seemed to have become a given that OP would have been "coached" in the story he told.

In my experience of "coaching" by defence counsel ,it relates to how to think about the questions asked and how to present the answers given, but the content must be one's own and it must be the truth.

So he wants us to compare the volume of sounds with no decibel meter having been used

I'm not watching the evidence but the decibel scale is logarithmic and in terms of relative comparison, the number it provides can seem counter-intuitive.

numbers not number

In the UK you don't have to intend to murder someone, but to intend to cause them serious harm (GBH). So it is no defence, for example, to say I didn't intend to kill them, just to shoot them in the leg.

I don't know if it is the same in SA?

I am at home to day with an injured leg so hope to get time to go through all those lovely links above.

Delurking again to say that I am VERY impressed by these threads. I like how the majority think and the tone is very mature.

I'm missing this as busy at work. (Have a quick coffee now)

This guy Dixon used to be Mangena's boss
It's Gerrie nel's job to cast doubt on expert witness evidence. I seem to recall Barry Roux doing the same with the States witnesses

nauticant . What do you mean?

I am actually feeling a tiny bit more empathetic to OP today than I have done from some time after a small accident I had yesterday. I tripped on some stairs and fell - lots of pain and bad bruising but all is fine.

HOWEVER as I fell I placed my iPhone on a straight side rail - my colleague brought it to me later and commented how impressed he was by what I did with the phone mid fall - he saw me. I.e. I put it somewhere safe as I was falling.

I have no memory of this at all. It was a totally instinctive response - it was sensible and it made sense to do it, but it was a totally automatic action. I mean hope long does it take to trip and fall?

Apologies for the slight aside, but I found it an interesting personal experience in automatic responses and "I don't know M'lady's".