Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

That link yesterday with the legal team discussing the way that certain witnesses will be discounted due to 'subconscious bias' was fascinating. It was suggesting that the point at which Nel was niggling at Stander regarding his saying that Oscar had said he made a mistake was Nel's (according to the clip) very skilful way of demonstrating that Stander was heavily biased towards OP and therefore that his evidence should be somewhat discounted by the Judge. I imagine that Sam Taylor's evidence will be similarly discounted. That makes the Stipps, Berger etc very relevant witnesses - they witnessed a lot, and they have no bias.

I've learnt so much about the way evidence is presented/interpreted from this trial. Bonnie at the time I would have agreed with you re. Nel being the more aggressive, but Looking is right in that he did not do this to any of the lay witnesses who by definition, as Looking says, were "just someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time". Dixon was presenting himself as an expert and then making some quite serious claims which countered the State's case. Painful though it was to watch, he deserved to be thoroughly cross-examined.

Dixon was a perfect example of why it's not worth being a witness

I just want to raise this - there are two distinct sorts of witnesses; a lay witness, and an expert witness.

Burger, the Stipps, the Standers, they were all lay witnesses. Dixon was an expert witness, Pistorius is the accused.

I think the way Nel was with the Standers and the next door neighbour can be compared to how Roux was with the Bergers and the Stipps. The way Nel was with Dixon can be compared to the way Roux was with the prosecution pathologist and ballistics experts. And Oscar stands alone.

But Nel may turn into a dragon again today - who knows?

Anyhow, I have a shocking cold, so I'll be watching today's in bed, and then my MIL is down until Saturday, which gives me two evenings where I can squirrel away in bed to do transcripts while she gets up to date with Game of Thrones. I hope to have the first two days complete by the end of the weekend.

But Roux' job is to provide the best defence for his client and if burger was muddy or possibly making up her evidence or changing it or whatever he should pin that down

BarryBateman says Mangena (state ballistics expert) has arrived at court with tripod laser and other tools.

Scrub that! My laptop has given me an old feed!

Nerf, I'm hoping it will be shown here when it starts. Possibly other places too, but the Telegraph hold the page nicely before it starts.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10668819/Watch-live-Oscar-Pistorius-murder-trial.html

Thanks / does it go on you tube for this evening? Can't think of any discreet way of fitting it into my working day

voice I don't disagree re Dixon, as I said I think he brought it on himself, but I would not be at all surprised if anyone watching that would be put off being interrogated by Nel.

The accused is also meant to be innocent before proven guilty and Nel saying directly that he is a liar wasn't on either (I think he was even reprimanded by the judge for this).

I'm not going to have time to watch live today so will need to catch up later....

To be fair Looking I don't think Nel thought that the Standers or other neighbours presented by the defence had much of any interest to his case, so he didn't bother with extensive questioning. Whereas as Nerf says, what the Stipps/Bergers present as their evidence is incredibly damaging to OP's case. It is imperative for the defence that they discredit that evidence as much as possible.

I'll do my best to give soundbites, if that helps, Nerf.

You are right, of course, about Roux.

I suppose my bias is thus; it's Roux's job to do the best he can for Oscar, and it's Nel's job to do the best he can for Reeva. I'm always going to be on the side of the person who took the bullets over the person who pulled the trigger.

I'm not without sway - if there are genuinely extenuating circumstances '(s)he was about to kill my child/parter,' or so forth, I can see why a trigger would be pulled. In this circumstance, I can see how it may have been a tragic accident. But a little voice always follows that with 'a tragic accident that was only possible because he had guns, and when instantly for a gun rather than any other form of resolving the situation'.

I agree it is my personal bias on hating guns that makes my starting position 'the person who pulled the trigger is responsible'.

(To be fair to me, I really love watching target shooting, trick shots, competitive markmanship. But I can't get excited about the things themselves like, for example, my husband can. He's not a gun nut and would never own a gun, but he can appreciate the machine beyond the use of it. I start off by thinking they're vile things.)

Just to explain my bias a bit.

Interesting BBC link here with the Lord Chief Justice Roberts saying he has been very troubled by what he has seen with the televising of OP's trial in South Africa and therefore wants a pause before we acceded to more televising of UK courts.

Thanks looking.

I think of Nel as doing his best for the state not Reeva! That's weird isn't it.

I'm not going to be doing much of anything if my computer won't play ball! At 8:30 exactly it keeled over. Maybe it's got my cold.

That is interesting voice. I wonder why he thinks that. For me it's this whole thing around putting witnesses off (whether by being nervous of Nel or Roux's interrogation, or both, or just that fact that they will be seen and then talked about by so many people). We know at least one person dropped out and we don't know exactly why, but it could have been the desire to just not get involved. And I can totally understand that.

Why did the judge choose to have this trial televised, does anyone know or would she not have said?

looking are you doing the excel table as well whilst you're resting?

No, Bonnie, I'm leaving the excel to Nerf. I'm still going to transcribe though. I have to keep my mind active!

Only, I think the sound card in my PC has just gone. I have pictures with no sound. So I'm not going to be doing much of anything.

From the pictures, I can tell you that the court looks much quieter today - the back three rows are empty. June Steenkamp has changed her position; she's now on the end, with her friend next to her, and the ANC woman's league after that. The Myers' are there, apparently, but not right next to her.

Make of that what you will; something or nothing.

Nerf it is interesting the way different people see this. I suppose the only thing I'd say is that it's not in the State's best interest to put an innocent person in prison. He has to find the truth, that's all.

I suppose it's not in Reeva's best interest to put an innocent person in prison either though.

Here we go. Nel not holding back.

Nel like a dog with a bone

To be fair to Roux:
His client has altered so much of the prior evidence at his bail on the stand (including his plea and the position of the magazine rack), it is hard for Roux to even know what defense to present

The witnesses, particularly Stander, tried to tailor his evidence to OP's case, so that he repeated OP's statements almost word for word making his evidence inadmissible by 'putative consistent statement' as well as 'subconscious bias'.

Putative consistent statement is where a client has consistently said something ie "I thought it was an intruder". Which is on record and been cross examined.
Now when another witness introduces the same line, it is automatically disallowed (already on record).
If Nel had cross examined this (which he didn't) it would have then been entered in record again, so the original defense would have been open again for CH to be discussed.
By Nel not taking the bait, it means all Roux has to work with is involuntary action (impossible for Roux to have any success)

As for the cross examination of Dr Stipp.
Roux was heavy with him re phone logs form security and not Stipps own phone log.
There was an engaged call (not on security log)
A connected call (on security log)
A missed call (on security log.)
Roux used this (without success) to try and confuse Dr Stipp regarding the times of the "help, help, help" ie "was this your second call?" which would have, according to Rouxs records, to be at the same time he was attending to Reeva.
The bastard was desperately trying to sabotage Dr Stipps evidence!!!

What do you think the Standers and OP would have done if Dr Stipps hadn't arrived?

I'm busy today so won't be able to listen until coming home on train tonight when I'll catch up on YouTube

I am following twitter, but for those following the feed, how did the anaesthetist come across?

I agree YNK. Until Dr Stipp arrived, no one had even called an ambulance.

I've forgotten how did DR Stipps arrived? Was he called or just came out after hearing the noise?

I have already nailed my colours to the mast, so I am happy to be flamed by the OP is a poor innocent brigade

You don't say YNK I'd never have guessed

Although I do hear and understand about the arguing and such wot but I can't see any evidence to it, which is why I believe he'll be found guilty of pre med murder but not necessarily Reevas.