Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Mad Pistorius tries to turn murder trial into Oscar Ceremony!

75 replies

TerrierandJune96 · 03/03/2014 14:25

Not sure how many of you are watching the trial (or trying to avoid it!) but the following article from the excellent and very funny Evening Harold has found an angle with the Oscars. Enjoy!

eveningharold.com/2014/03/03/mad-pistorius-turns-murder-trial-into-oscar-ceremony/#more-180307

OP posts:
AngelaDaviesHair · 07/03/2014 13:02

That's the question. There have been recent cases of jurors looking stuff up on the Internet, even Facebooking defendants. There is going to be a new specific criminal offence to cover this.

But will we find jurors who haven't been tainted by all the coverage in really high-profile cases? Our media has to obey the law and be limited in what they publish pre-trial, but people can go on foreign sites and read all sorts.

Animation · 07/03/2014 13:09

Still think there's a lot resting on one man - and what's to say he's not contaminated by outside information, as well as influenced by Pistorius' mood and appearance in court.

AngelaDaviesHair · 07/03/2014 13:15

influenced by Pistorius' mood and appearance in court

I think how any witness or defendant behaves in court is definitely relevant though.

But you're right, there is a lot resting on one individual judge (this one is a woman). I suppose you have the chance to appeal if you think the judge has got it wrong.

Seff · 07/03/2014 13:16

There are also some people who just don't want to do jury service. Self employed people, for example, who would lose business for however long the trial is on. For some people, that could really damage their business. So people pull out. Are we then at risk of having juries that are only made up of certain groups of people?

I have to admit, until I found out that South Africa don't have juries, I'd never really questioned the system. But it has got me thinking about it.

It's an important topic in the UK at the moment. Phone hacking and historic rape cases as examples. Our media has to obey the law (or is supposed to at least!) but they are very skilled at brushing up against it. Headlines can be provocative yet still perfectly legal. I remember a murder case where the victim's landlord was questioned. He was innocent, but the media had practically convicted him based on appearance alone.

By the time most of these high profile cases go to trial, many potential jurors will already have knowledge and opinions of the cases. And not all that information will be true. I can imagine it's not easy to put aside everything you've previously heard or read about a defendant in order to judge a case with a clean slate.

The problem is that it is either one or the other, we can't say that juries are ok as long as there are no "celebrities" involved. Or as long as the case hasn't been in the national press. A very tricky subject.

Animation · 07/03/2014 13:17

Yes a female judge!

Seff · 07/03/2014 13:17

A jury can also be influenced by the behaviour of a defendant in court, as well as that of any witness.

Animation · 07/03/2014 13:26

When there's on a jury - you assume some might get it right and persuade the others accordingly.

The woman judge will interpret Pestorius' tears and emotiona of yesterday as real or as a performance. That one woman has to decide. How can she be sure.

Animation · 07/03/2014 13:29

I remember the film '10 angry men' or was it '12 angry men', when that one juror managed to convince and persuade the others towards the right verdict.

AngelaDaviesHair · 07/03/2014 13:31

Can work the other way though, presumably.

Seff · 07/03/2014 13:32

You could also assume that some jurors could get it wrong and persuade the others accordingly.

How can a jury be sure?

The point is that both systems work on either one person or a group of people choosing whether to believe one version of events or another. How much depends on how good a lawyer you have?

Personally, I would trust a judge to be able to remain impartial in the face of emotion more than I would trust a jury of "ordinary" people off the streets, with no prior experience of the judicial system, who may already have an opinion of the person on trial.

AmIthatWintry · 07/03/2014 21:24

Animation, the Jude has two assessors sitting by her and they will help her interpret the evidence, although on points of law she has final say. She's held in high regard so pretty sure she will not be swayed

I served on a jury for a murder trial, pre social media days. I have to be honest, some of the jurors were clueless. One girl really didn't want to be there, was scared to speak up and agreed with everything the person sitting next to her said. It was a majority verdict, as two of the women "felt bad" about sending the woman to prison, so couldn't bring themselves to say she was guilty. Unbelievable

OpalQuartz · 10/03/2014 13:10

I saw a bit of a witness account given by someone who lived nearby and I didn't really understand it. They said that they heard a woman scream, then a man shouting "Help!" Then heard shooting. (I think.) It didn't seem to fit with either the "thought she was a burglar" theory (because if she screamed first he would have known she was not a burglar,) or the "killed her on purpose" theory, as if he killed her on purpose, why would he be shouting help before he shot her? Have I misunderstood what was said? Confused

ExcuseTypos · 10/03/2014 19:44

Opal- I didn't follow that either- it doesn't make any sense.

OpalQuartz · 10/03/2014 20:03

Glad it's not just me.

Seff · 10/03/2014 20:55

Part of the defence rests on picking holes in the witness statements, trying to use the huge media interest to their advantage. They are trying to prove that the witness accounts have been influenced by things they have heard or read since that night - such as number of shots fired.

Where testimonies have differed from original statements, the defence are saying that accounts of what happened can't really get more accurate over 12 months after making their original statements.

They want to prove that there is reasonable doubt that it was premeditated. Although I did read on the BBC website that even if he is found not guilty of pre meditated murder, he could still receive a prison sentence for shooting an intruder through a door, but as has been stated already, self defence and gun law in SA isn't something we can really understand in the UK.

ListenToTheLady · 10/03/2014 23:36

Surely even if he murdered her in a fight, he could still be filled with horror and remorse, cry and be sick when forced to confront it in the courtroom. It isn't necessarily an "act" either way.

I am shocked at the amount of jokes and pisstaking about this trial. It's a tragic, horrible case. Whatever happened, and I don't have an opinion on whether he's guilty, how must it make the victim's loved ones feel to see it being used as entertainment? It's awful.

Floralnomad · 10/03/2014 23:49

His defence team are trying to say that the screaming the neighbours heard was him screaming ,when the ex girlfriend was being questioned they were trying to get her to say that when he is stressed and anxious he screams like a woman ,but she kept disagreeing . That said she has a bit of an axe to grind as he dumped her after two timing her with the poor unfortunate girl that was killed so I don't think she wants to do him any favours .

shushmonster · 11/03/2014 00:05

The neighbours account of a woman screaming and then a man shouting for help was a bit confusing. Could he have been setting himself up to use the 'intruder' defence there and then ?

RonaldMcDonald · 11/03/2014 00:22

Really upset/cross by how much importance people are placing in his tears or upset
My father used to cry buckets after hospitalising members of my family

Floralnomad · 11/03/2014 01:01

I don't think anyone is placing importance on the tears and upset ,sure the news people keep pointing it out but the way I am seeing it is that because they keep making a point of it you should read something into it ( but I'm really cynical) . Like all the vomiting today ,is anyone really trying to make me believe that he hadn't heard the PM report before today and if you've heard it before would it really cause you to vomit ? Be upset maybe but vomit I'm not so sure ?

Bursarymum · 11/03/2014 01:11

South Africa is quite a dangerous place - I have a few SA friends who have told me that when people break into your house they will likely slit your throat before taking anything. It's a place where people's houses are high security fortresses.

As for OP. I have no idea. I do not understand how you can get out of bed and not know that your partner is not still there. And a number of other things. My heart goes out to Reeva Steenkamp's family.

Animation · 11/03/2014 06:49

"The neighbours account of a woman screaming and then a man shouting for help was a bit confusing. Could he have been setting himself up to use the 'intruder' defence there and then ?"

Yes I thought that.

OpalQuartz · 11/03/2014 06:56

That's possible, although it doesn't fit with his claim that he thought she was still on bed, as the screaming would tell him where she was.

OpalQuartz · 11/03/2014 06:58

His claim is that she was in bed, he got up and went onto the balcony, thought he heard an intruder in the bathroom and rushed through the bedroom thinking she was still in bed, whereas she had actually got up to go to the bathroom

OpalQuartz · 11/03/2014 07:01

When they claimed that he sounded like a woman screaming, the response was "but I heard man and a woman screaming. Am I to believe that he was screaming in two different voices? "