DID BARRY ROUX SUCCEED?
Definitely not. The judge was exceptionally polite and kind towards his chaotic case. She chose not to review the credibility of the witnesses he called, gently ignoring Dixon, and other whimsy.
He and Oscar have been allowed to win with a “mention every defence possible” defence: Mention every possible defence, and leave it to judge to figure out, to select which she’ll accept. She shrewdly listed his wide range of contradictory and wildly different explanations ; but allowed him to suffer no penalty for doing so.
It was fair to say that just because a witness lies about some things doesn’t automatically mean he is guilty. True, but it doesn’t mean he’s innocent, either. And if he’s shown to be unreliable on anything important, one cannot assume anything else he says must be true.
When the accused is, like Oscar being the only living witness, given his obviously enormous temptation to tailor his evidence to suit his needs, can one really safely accept as fact anything he says?
DID GERRIE NEL FAIL?
Many admired his performance in cross-examination. But his tactics were over-confident, and maybe seriously under-budgeted?
He should have called more expert witnesses (and advised in Court by suitable experts), and undoubtedly should have re-opened the case to call his own experts to rebut some of the peculiar “expert” evidence the Defence led.
For instance, Dr Derman should never have been allowed to testify as an Expert on topics so far outside his training and known areas of expertise; his highly over-simplified and excessively rigid inventions cried out to be challenged by a real expert. Too many importantly misleading points went unchallenged.
The judge recalled Dr Vorster’s odd evidence, finding G.A.D, although the panel of experts did NOT find it present, and in the history of psychiatry, we can’t find records of any case which found anxiety disorder could in any way impair one’s criminal capacity.
AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN?
Roux’s insistence that, instead, he has been chronically emotionally stunted by his disability, excessively anxious from infancy, his mind filled with mythical “startles”, to the point that it sounded remarkable he hadn’t run amok before now.
Indeed, Roux says we must set a new legal standard for reasonableness, just for footless athletes, who apparently can’t be expected to be as reasonable as us ordinary, footed folks.
SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
The judge took it as fact that the light in the toilet was out. Why were the police and others not asked about this?
– Oscar fell asleep with lights on, why did he suddenly want total darkness to the extreme extent of wanting to hide the tiny blue LED light?
Did she conclude that Oscar couldn’t have known that firing four highly destructive bullets at someone would not be likely to kill them?
Why was she quoting evidence of Oscar’s distress, as somehow establishing innocence?
The media must be really embarrassed that there predictions were so wrong and so obviously biased and that the news will now be so lame and boring.
Renowned defence lawyer, William Booth, believes that televising the Oscar trial increases transparency and holds South African magistrates and judges accountable for their actions.
“Traditionally, witnesses shouldn’t talk to each other. What happened here is that every witness knew what the previous witness had said.”
However, he believed witnesses would still have been able to pick up information from social media if the trial had not been on television.
Booth said there were two possible grounds for appeal — that of Pistorius claiming he was badgered by the State and that of witnesses not being called because they did not want to be televised, even though the judgement on the televising of the case made provision for witnesses being called in camera.
Never had we seen a Judge SO lenient before. On the lighter side there is now a hoard of people clamouring to have this Judge hear their cases – apparently Zuma is leading the queue!
Many critics feel that her interpretations was that of a child, and that common sense was so lacking it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Concerns have been raised that this has created severe implications for cases in future and has really made a laughing stock of South Africa and those who are involved in law. There are those who feel that her findings were not logical and seemingly contradicted, and that Oscar got away with murder.
Most of us are by now really sick and tired of this on giong soap opera. The self confessed experts who apparently know everything yet know very little. The ignorant fools such as Joey Barton and Donald Trump claiming that the SA justice system has been brought into disrepute. The multitude of spectators who have insinuated that Judge Masipa is either incompetent or has been ‘bought’!
What galls most about this petty saga is that there have been far more serious and heinous crimes committed in SA, and yet, the Soapie obsessed public are consumed by this case only.
Had Pistorius killed an actual intruder we would still have been subjected to this farce. What about focussing our time and energy on the REAL crimes taking place in SA?