Pistorius trial resumes with the defendant’s final witness

Monday, July 7, 2014

Good morning:

We resume this morning after the weekend hullabaloo over the Sunday evening showing on Australian television of a defense reenactment video of the shooting.

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

44 Responses to Pistorius trial resumes with the defendant’s final witness

  1. ay2z says:

    Care must be taken to then synchronize the cities once the local places and times, etc, have been plugged into an application like world clock converter.

    The UTC offset MUST be applied to synchronize the results to each other, not just plug and click for automatic results without further steps.

    Channel 7 in Australia, might, for example, have been given permission in some agreement, to air the program as they did, on the evening of July 07, 2014.

    If someone, in preparing a document, had used an app to convert the time differences quickly used a plug and play online converter but failed to use UTC offset, the program could be sent (with permission or otherwise) to air on the evening of Sunday July 7, 2014. Someone could easily miss the fact that all the dates were the same, if they accepted the app results at face value and put the dates into a contract agreement.

    Oops! Maybe that ER video firm was not at fault afterall.

    “UTC offset
    This is the time difference between the selected locations and UTC at the specified point in time. Please note that this is not the time difference between the “from location” and the other locations, but the time difference between each location and UTC.”


  2. ay2z says:

    This might be useful to discover what actual time the Channel 7 program first hit the airwaves, local SA time for Judge Masipa’s courtroom?


  3. ay2z says:

    Nels will be avoiding that reason for future appeal?

    The news reports suggest now that Channel 7 execs claim to have obtained the video legally, or thought so, and that had they thought it was illegally obtained, would never have aired it. News report showed text statements that appeared to be quotations of the Channel 7 exec, Mr. Llewellyn.

    The defense position seems to be that the video was obtained illegally.

    Add to this, is the idea that the videos were legally sold but with some agreement

    If the video was sold by or on behalf of Pistorius but a proviso in the sale agreement was to not air the video until after the conclusion of trial, then the idea that a client’s video and confidentiality was abused by the ER firm, might not quite be so.

    The defence may have stipulated to wait until end of day on July 07, 2014, at which time they would have rested their case, but failed to account for time and day date differences.

    Australia, is on the other side of the International Date Line, which means July 07, 2014 would be Sunday in all of Australia when the Sunday report aired.

    Australia has 3 time zones from the west coast to the east coast. The video producing ER firm is based in Cleveland, Ohio, which is of course the same date as SA but a day earlier than west coast Australia. (EST is some 21 – 23 hrs behind Australia),

    It is currently evening just past the hour in South Africa (~8 pm July 7 Monday), afternoon in Ohio (~2 pm July 7, Monday) and just past 2 am to 4 am respectively (July 8, Tuesday) in Australia.

    (note, the Wild About Trial live site gives an inccrrect hour difference from SA time to EST by 1 hr, so mistakes are easy to make, if only the 1 hr DST correction),

    If ER did sell the video legally through some 3 party agreement (involving three different hour differences and two different day dates) that included Pistorius or his management or legal representatives in SA, seems that agreement will have to be revealed by ER to defend itself from implications of wrong-doing, even if there is a non-disclosure clause.

    (didn’t the witness ‘manager/agent’ for Pistorius, say he managed all financial affairs? Easily Pistorius could be well insulated from the ‘deal’, and what was, if any, NIKE’s part in this, besides worldwide exposure of it’s brand logo on a sleeveless top (and shorts) on the fit torso of Pistorius?)

    Pistorius planning for the option of appeal?

    • The case has not concluded until Judge Masipa renders her decision and that won’t be awhile because the defense hasn’t rested, the State still has an opportunity for rebuttal, and the lawyers have their closing arguments.

      I doubt the defense agreed to sell it because it appears to hurt the defense.

      I don’t know why Nel decided not to use it, unless he’s pretty sure he’s going to win and doesn’t want to inject an appeal issue.

      • ay2z says:

        Yes, that makes sense Nel would not want to use it. He did ask some questions today that seem to have indirectly addressed the mobility issues, such as asking the ‘expert’ whether he knew if Pistorius could walk backwards on his stumps.

        (of course, that could be from OP’s testimony too, ‘I stepped back” at the entrance to the bathroom, presumably he did not turn around before stepping back in the passage. (Or maybe he was ‘kneeling’ which he claimed on one day, but did not mention the next week when the opportunity to explain, arose.)

        So many inconsistencies. And the risk of trial delay while the video issue investigated and dealt with.

        The state would want time to investigate the video issue themselves in case it’s raised later and be used as a basis for appeal. Pistorius and his people may have had the bright idea to make some more money, he may be arrogant enough to do that by simply blaming others.

  4. ABC News is reporting that the prosecution knows about the video, but isn’t going to do anything about it.

  5. Pdeadder says:

    Can the defence consult with the states phyciatrist?

  6. Pdeadder says:

    Mr Nell asks Professor Derman if Pistorius is a danger to society because of the anxiety bla bla bla that Derman said Pistorius has.
    Professor says he doesn’t know.
    Mr Nell but Professor he shot and killed according to you this was a factor.
    Also can’t he be a hostile witness or is that just in movies?
    As well I read a mistrial could be declared because of the film released.Can this be true since there is no jury?

    • ay2z says:

      Good morning, just found a better explanation than the article comment I posted on the other thread.

      This ‘legal expert’ (SA has them too!) gives a different view, no necessary mistrial in SA. Will repost the link.

      Worth watching because it gives some insight maybe, into how Nel handles this but without causing the court to act.

      Now to watch the rest, caught the end in the wee hours and the start of the day after that.

      Anyone bothered (back to our last comments Pat) that this morning, the defense made a huge fuss about the ‘run’ objection and also added the need to interview the state’s ‘witness’ (a stretch to call the psychiatrists on the panel, normal class of witness) to be interviewed by the defense.
      Together, these two things, timed as they are at wrap up first thing this morning, may have nothing to do with the released video timing, but it’s strange such an unusual fuss about Nel’s ‘run’ question. The defense may simply have wanted to use the psychiatrist for the state, turning her into a defence witness.

    • The question about Pistorius being a danger to the community was a good point to make, given how Derman portrayed him as anxious, vigilant, and quick to use a gun because of his disability.

    • A hostile witness refers to a reluctant witness called by a party who refuses to directly answer non-leading questions. The lawyer asks permission to question the witness with leading questions and permission will be granted.

      The opposing party, in this case the State, can already ask leading questions.

  7. Derman is excused and we are in recess until tomorrow morning.

  8. Malisha says:

    Something occurs to me. If Pistorius thought there was an intruder but, after having broken down the door, saw that it was poor dead Reeva after all, why wouldn’t the police have discovered some manner of human waste in the toilet bowl and why wouldn’t OP have expected that to be the case, once he realized he had killed Reeva? IOW, UNLESS she ran in there to escape a raging angry boyfriend, the sounds would have included a toilet flush and lacking that, the toilet would have been used but not flushed.

    The fact that the toilet bowl was unused but no flush sound was heard by OP pretty much means that no matter who he THOUGHT was in there, since it turned out that REEVA was in there, she did not go in there to relieve herself but to escape violence.


  9. Nel asks him if he can comment about the State’s theory of the case: OP fired through the door intending to kill the person inside.

    Derman dodges saying that’s up to the court to decide.

  10. Nel gets him to admit that OP never said that he fired because the door was opening.

  11. Derman does not recall OP saying he heard movement in the toilet cubicle.

    Admits he would have remembered that if OP said that because he was asking OP about the sounds he heard.

    Does not recall evolves into he did not.

    Nel confronts him about the difference and accuses him of bias. He insists they are the same.

    Nel accuses him of being afraid to say anything that might hurt OP.

  12. Session 3 begins after a short break for Nel to review his notes.

  13. Nel: If OP was expecting to hear a sound from within the toilet area because he heard the window open and the toilet door close (the first two startles), he wouldn’t have startled, would he?

    Derman claims the studies show the startle would be greater.

    Oops, Nel did not expect that answer. He shrugged it off quickly by getting Derman to agree that OP was hypervigilant.

  14. Did OP say that he saw the toilet door opening?

    No, he doesn’t recall that.

  15. Session 2 begins.

    OP told him he heard 3 sounds:

    (1) window opening

    (2) toilet door closing

    (2) sound of the magazine rack.

    He doesn’t recall how OP described that sound.

    Agrees that it would not have made a sound on its own.

  16. Tea Break: midmorning recess.

  17. Nel tears apart the statement that disabled adults are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

    Derman’s statement was misleading because it’s based on interviews of people living in other types of living situations who were victims of hate crimes.

    It doesn’t apply to OP. He was not vulnerable and didn’t feel vulnerable, especially with his gun in his hand.

  18. Nel boxes Dr. Derman’s ears for unduly emphasizing the significance of a score of 70 on the anxiety scale as “high.”

    It’s at the top end of the normal range and he is not qualified to express an opinion on what it means.

    The psychiatrists found that OP did not suffer from any of the disorders in DSM V, including the anxiety disorder that Dr. Vorster testified about.

    • Malisha says:

      A score of 70 may be “borderline high” but anybody who is on trial for murder before this tribunal might be expected to score a bit high on anxiety, you know.

    • MKX says:

      Being at the top end of normal in a statistical distribution means that the individual is within one standard deviation of the norm, thus being in a group that represents 66% of the population. And because there will be a very high anxiety group above the firs standard deviation comprising 18% of the population, then Derman’s failed logic means that there are > 18,000 out of every 100,000 people in South Africa who have an anxiety disorder – patently false and stupid.

      Of course, the same logic is used in the USA.

      Although black male teens fall into a normal distribution with respect to strength, the “fact” that they “look” athletic means that 99,000 out of every 100,000 are brutes who can throw down a 205 pound man and assault him with “deadly” concrete – thus making “reasonable” shooting one in self-defense when “startled”.

      • Malisha says:

        Also, anyone with a score of 70 for anxiety would naturally have to pulverize his locked bathroom door with bullets if something went bump in the night. Of course, by this kind of analysis, any wife whose husband had ever pushed her or yelled at her while drunk would have a self-defense claim if she shot him in the head when he took a sip of wine with dinner. Hey, wait a minute, maybe this anxiety thing has merit… 😆

        • MKX says:

          One can destroy a “Pissed off He was” or “Fogen” defender by using statistics.

          For example, one of the great non-evidence supported claims by Zimmerman was that Trayvon, although he was alone and small @ 157 pounds, decided to beat a man he did not know to death.

          What are the odds of that being true?

          One the other hand, there is clear evidence that Zimmerman thought Martin was a burglar and that he followed – “shit he’s running away”.

          So what are the odds that Zimmerman cause the tussle?

          I would put the probability ratio for Zimmerman starting the tussle at least 1000:1

          Spock would be very displeased at all the so-called “reality based” Progressives who defended the pig.

          Or would he?

          Humans, unlike Vulcans, are inherently non-rational. They easily fall into the trap of self-confirmation bias based on fears that have been put in their head by propaganda.

          That’s why one has to use cold blooded rational tools to scrutinize a tale step by step and line by line.

          • bettykath says:

            Progressives defended? I assume you mean fogen of Sanford. Where do you that?

          • Good post, except the mysterious progressive thing.

          • MKX says:

            On Daily Kos there were a lot of people who thought Zimmerman’s story had logical merit. A story that does not match up with actual facts is a work of fiction.

            And that site likes to brag that it is “reality based”.

            One of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment and the Progressive Era is that man can use critical thinking to cut through fear and superstition.

      • ay2z says:

        Nel also pointed out that the panel did not rely on numbers alone for conclusions about anxiety, as it seems Derman did, selectively from the psychiatrist’s report.

        He is, of course, qualified to read numbers in a report, tests, measures, etc. So he claimed he could draw psychiatric conclusions too. 😉

  19. Nel revisits the conflict of interest that Dr. Derman has by being OP’s treating physician and his witness.

    Dr. Derman admits he wouldn’t do that, if OP were a member of his family, but claims OP is not a member of his family and he can be objective about his testimony.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: