Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

here is Part 6. Nearly time for a new one.

I'm guessing most of the witnesses are balancing busy caseloads. It's the only explanation I can come up with for their problems providing accurate, dated reports,etc.

I wonder if they would've been a lot better prepared if they'd known last year this would be fed live to the world....

Also didn't they all agree to put in more hours if they took 2 weeks off for Easter? They seem to constantly taking breaks.

I am watching the Sky programme and would have to say Wolmarans is coming across well.

Not quite the floor wiping some on twitter (and the usual suspects on here) are claiming

Missed all of today's news. Would anyone be kind enough to tell me if there was anything of any consequence - did Wolmaran's testimony add any weight to the defence?

mary thank you for that link, I have read his blog before but not that post - it was excellent.

Springy - I agree.

Still watching but just wanted to briefly talk about something while fresh in my mind.
Just to caveat before I do, this is not about evidence or testimony but rather an observation of behaviour.
This is the first bit of footage I have watched in which Reeva's injuries and the tradjectiries/order of bullets have been discussed by expert witnesses. The way the footage has been cut in regards to camera angles gives good opportunity to observe OP in the dock.
Given his history of puting face down in his hands while plugging his ears and getting very distressed to the point of vomiting I was struck with how he was sitting upright, head up, looking streight ahead with a passive face while they where talking about the way Reeva may have collapsed once she was struck with the first bullet.
I felt quite distressed and ill at the discription of Reeva's hip being, to quote 'blown apart' and then her right arm 'smashed' with bone puncturing through the skin, with an exit wound on the back of her arm being discribed as massive. The mental image it gave me of Reeva's last moments and the pain she must have suffered (although thankfully for only a brief time) greatly upset me so I was surprised given his emotional reactions to the very mention of guns at other times how passive his his reaction was. I thought that maybe given how much exposure he has now had that he has become more able to keep his reactions in check.
This passive reaction continued even when talk about the head wound, tissue and hair embedded in the toilet lid and wall began. His head bowed when a picture of the toilet including pools of blood was put up, then as the expert was tested a little on his version, he wasn't in trouble so much as that the evidence was more in favour of the State then the expert in regards to how Reeva fell and the order of bullets, that's when the fingers went in ears and the head fully down in his hands.
I am being completely subjective here but I personally found the evidence and language used in the run up to this point far more distressing, the language being used at the time his fingers went in his ears was quite mild really (if you can really say that in the context of this kind of thing) but the main difference was that OP blocked his senses when things went a little way against him.
As a lay(wo)man I found that interesting. I don't think you could use it in the context of thinking about his guilt or innocence (as much as OP can be innoset in this) but what I felt it indicated was that rather then a purely emotional reaction cause by the loss of Reeva, OPs blocking of his senses may have more to do with a sence of things not going his way, he can't bare to see or hear anything that is or could be viewed as negative to his chances of the result he desires. I wouldn't translate all of his emotionl responses in this way, I haven't viewed them all for a start. But on this occasion to me it looked more like a reaction to a loss of control, difficult question kind of thing when put in context with the preceding, equally as distressing language and images (when thinking about Reeva and her suffering).

I found the image of the four bullet hole probes pushed through the toilet door seen from the inside of the toilet very upsetting, it jarred me, there was something so, I don't know how discribe it, best I can come up with is threatening.

I'm still on the fence on the question of if he knew it was Reeva in the toilet. It feels like the evidence is weighted equally both ways.
However on the question 'did OP intend to shoot dead the person or persons he beloved to be on the other side of the toilet door' I do think that yes he did. I really can't see how he could have had any other intention, one, even two shots I could have believed that he intended either to scare or cause injery, I could have even seen up to two shots as an accident, an involuntary squeezing of the trigger in a state of high fear and adrenaline but four, and the spread of those four trajectories, I just can't see how that could have been either of those.

Back to watching now, when I have finished I may make a more relevant then this post as this one is all subjective opinion rather then analysis of the evidence and therefore carries no weight.

I am going to perversely, miss the trial when it's over. I have (I hate to use the word but I can't think of another) enjoyed using my analytical brain and really thinking through difficult and twisting problems. I have enjoyed these threads and the chance to share ideas and problem solve with like minded people. I have been fascinated with the insight into legal systems (oh why haven't I been called for jury duty, I wish you could volunteer!) the mechanics, semantics and theatrics of trying to obtain justice.
I hope the above will be read the way I intended, this trial is not entertainment, the death of Reeva is not something that has given me any kind pleasure or enjoyment. A man in the dock having all he has ever worked for slip from his grasp, facing the real chance of going into a jail system that fails those who pass through it, that is not something to be enjoyed. I do hope it is clear that it is the chance to apply my brain to a problem and use my skills of logical thinking that I shall miss.

I'm really going now!

difference was that OP blocked his senses when things went a little way against him*

I did start to notice that when he was in the dock, when things weren't going his was he was getting upset. Didn't say anything because it could just be my bias.

I got the feeling that Mr W was honest, showed humility and fairness when under pressure from Nel.

Good to know PD I would imagine he has come up against Gerrie Nel many times before.

And he does seem to be SA's leading ballistics expert

RKBunny that was such an eloquent post. I really appreciated your 'take' on it (if that's the right words). I echo what you say in your final few paras. I have never been 'involved' in a court case like this - yes, I did watch the OJ Simpson trial but I found it lacking in so many ways - mainly because it was such a media circus. Yes, this has been televised and here we are all speculating, dissecting, corroborating evidence etc, but this trial has been different. It has opened my eyes in oh so many ways to a country that is beset with so many problems and yet seems to have a justice system whereby justice may prevail.

I agree that Mr W was honest, I do believe he did not change his reportas a direct result of of Mr Dixons testimony. However that doesn't mean his findings are 100% correct or that his opinions when it comes to the order the bullets hit or that the injury to Reeva's back was caused my the magazine rack rather then a bullet.
I think some of his reasoning was unsound and I think he was unwilling to acknowledge that there where other valid ways things could have happened.
On the whole I thought he did very well, I thought he was a good witness, probably the best the diffence have yet to put on the stand. I did think he was very pig headed and unwilling to concede the point that the injury on Reeva's back was a good match for the bullet fragment from the toilet bowl.
I do think that his administration and lack of forethought when it came to ensuring the integrity of his whole report was shocking. As I have said a few times, I believe him however as an expirenced independent expert who has many years of expirence as a witness he really should know better and understand that how every accurate his report is it loses much of its weight without the paper trail to ensure it's integrity.
As it stands right now all we have is his word. I'm sorry but it isn't enough even though I believe him. If I were the judge or on a jury faced with this issue I would have to give the evidence less weight then it would otherwise have due to this issue.

Even if he had ensured the integrity of his report I really don't think his evidence has done much to sure up the defence case. It hasn't in my opinion damaged the defence case at all. Even if you where to take his version as the truth of what happened it doesn't really help OPs case much.

I have an underlying feeling that the defence focus has shifted somewhat and at this point they are simply trying to show that he didn't know it was Reeva behind the door.
When the closing arguments are in I think the defence they are going to use us punitive self defence, the defence that most people believed he was going to use from the offset however OP himself has really weakened that defence with his claims that he didn't intend to shoot anybody and the whole thing was a terrible accident and he would be saying the same thing if it had been an intruder behind the door. (Even though many, me included doubt we would be having this trial had it been an intruder he had shot and killed)
The defence has been completely reactionary to the States case, more tellingly it has been reactionary to the States cross examination of OP. I feel that indicates that even OPs legal team feel that while on the stand OP did himself massive damage. I do wonder what the defence case was meant to look like had OP been better on the stand. Unless Roux write a tell all book after the fact we shall never know, although if Roux did write that book (The world according to Roux , It cannot be! Why you should listen to Roux ) it would be an instand best seller!

I'm not sure if the SA justice system is that great.

The lack of subjudice has been horrendous and almost certainly extremely distressing for Reeva's family. So much purient lies have been written, this wouldn't have happened here.

The crime scene work for this case hasn't been without problems.

It is very odd that none of the servants have been called, regardless of future job prospects, if they were in a position to hear something, they should be called as witnesses.

There have been issues with interpreters. In this case, those who have used interpreters can at least speak English too, but it could be very damaging in cases when people couldn't speak English.

Also, I think we are seeing the adversarial system as its most adversarial and I've got mixed feelings about it. Is it the best way to examine the evidence, or just putting people under the sort of conditions that would pull most people to pieces, regardless if they are telling the truth or not?

I think we like very much the demeanour of Judge Masipa and that she comes from a very less than privileged background, but most Judges don't and have to make rulings about people whose lives differ hugely from theirs.

Some of these issues exist in the UK system too. This case has definitely made me more interested in how other countries do things.

I think many laypeople think that the US system they see on TV applies to real life, hence the frequent comments OP should have struck some kind of plea bargain for manslaughter, despite that not being applicable in the SA system

I can't argue with most of your points there gosh however I do want to pull up again about the fact that Frank, OPs house keeper has not been called as a witness.

What ever you think about the moral rights and wrongs about his statement that essentially of 'I saw nothing, I heard nothing, I was asleep' and the likely reasons he gave that statement I have to stress that calling him as a witness would have been absolutely pointless.
All that would have happened was he would have testified that he was asleep, he didn't hear anything and didn't know anything was amiss until people began to arrive at the house. It would have done nothing to help the case of either party and would have likely caused a man to lose his livelihood and home.
You can compel a person to testify but you can't compel a person to tell the truth (If in fact he did hear or see anything). Yes you could charge a person with perjury but to do so would require evidence that he was indeed lying and given the fact two close neighbours didn't hear gunshots how on earth could you prove Frank did hear something? He may not have, his quarters where on the ground floor. The shooting occurred on the second floor on I believe the other side of the house. Neighbours who heard anything where all also on the first floor.

However morally outraged we may feel about Franks statement you can not blame the justice system of South Africa for this. It us not an intrinsic failing of the justice system that has lead to this.
If Frank did indeed hear or see something and has kept quiet for all the reasons stated on the last thread then that failing us within the prevailing underclass of a post Apartheid South Africa. The 'story' of Frank and the other overlooked house staff at the silver woods estate is something to get angry about but not because he wasn't called to give evidence and gave a statement many to believe was untrue but because black people in South Africa are still largely povity stricken with poor education and limited options in life. Please get angry about the Franjs of this world but make it for the right reasons.

Sorry got on my soap box a bit there and was probably unfair to you gosh the above was largely aimed at those who have said the Frank should have been forward to testify, I have just Sean it said so many times my frustration boiled over.

Good post Roadkill , I basically agree.

Can anybody clear up for me regarding the wounds on Reeva's back discussed today. Wolmarans seemed to eventually agree that the magazine rack was too smooth to cause the wound striations yet was adamant that the shape of the bullet's core bore no resemblance to the shape of the bruise (I thought it did) so what was his version of how Reeva sustained the

Bruises l

I liked Wolmarans as an expert. He seemed expert and trying to explain his craft in detail. I felt he was a good defence witness

Good article you posted yesterday Mary21

Great posts Roadkill

Roadkill, I was really interested with your take on OP's reactions. I was also watching him quite carefully.

One thing I've noticed is that for some reason, the wood splinters seem to upset him greatly. I haven't seen the early part with the earlier ballistics experts from the prosecution, but certainly with Dixon and Wolmaran, his hands went to his head when hearing about the wood splinters.

It interested me on a purely psychological level, and to be honest, I'm not prepared to extrapolate what that might mean. But for some reason, hearing about the secondary wounds from the wood splinters seems to set him off.

There have been issues with interpreters. In this case, those who have used interpreters can at least speak English too, but it could be very damaging in cases when people couldn't speak English.

This aspect of the trial has always fascinated me, particularly with Burger, where she switches to English when it becomes apparent that her English is better than the interpreters. There was an issue with the word 'confused' which she used and was translated correctly according to both Nel and Roux. In English, she tried to explain the exact nuance, and as an English speaker, I wondered if the word 'baffled' was closer - as in, the events of the evening and the high emotions baffled her brain slightly, so she couldn't give the absolute precise timings, but could remember the pertinent points. The nuance is a really difficult thing to put across, particularly in translation.

The problem is, in a country with so many national languages, I don't know what other option there is. As far as I understand it, the court will use whichever language is the accused's mother-tongue. The witnesses have to fit in with that, so choose to speak that language or submit to translation. I suppose it's the only fair way.

Some post recently (and I've tried to find it but can't) said that they thought that the trial would have not been brought to court if it had been a black intruder in that toilet who had been shot and way back on another thread someone from SA disputed that and said the trial would have been the same.

However, this para is interesting from my link below. Under South African law, an intruder must pose a direct threat before a homeowner like Pistorius can shoot. But Sandile Memela, director of public relations at the South African government's Department of Arts and Culture, maintained in the Mail and Guardian newspaper that Pistorius would not have been arrested and charged had the person behind the door been a black burglar instead of a white woman. Gosh, is that right? One rule for one and one for another?

this is an interesting article from the SA press about the current climate in that country.

Gosh your post is spot on for me. I feel very strongly about the lack of subjudice and agree we are seeing the adversarial system at its most adversarial - I don't have mixed feelings about it though, I think it must be to the detriment of justice. Also as I mentioned earlier the inefficiency and lack of preparedness is shocking to me, not just from the defence but across the board.

"The problem is, in a country with so many national languages, I don't know what other option there is. As far as I understand it, the court will use whichever language is the accused's mother-tongue. The witnesses have to fit in with that, so choose to speak that language or submit to translation. I suppose it's the only fair way."

Wolmaran's mother tongue /first language is Afrikaans but he chose to speak in English, so indon't think they have to speak in their 'own tongue'. He even said at the beginning of his testimony that he might use some Afrikaans words where he didn't know the right English one and would need the translator to help if that happened. The judge said it was ok.

I think that the court have done an excellent job with the numerous languages. It drives me crazy when I read people tweet or post about how poorly for instance Wolmarans speaks. I wonder what their grasp is of other languages. Certainly my schoolgirl French would not hold up to a Witness Stand
South Africans IME do a great job of trying to be conversant in at least 3 languages. ( usually with a few words of others )