Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

And as Nel says - it works both ways as far as calling witnesses.

If leaked video was created for purposes of obtaining legal advice in respect of pending litigation, it is privileged and cannot be presented.

MEDIA STATEMENT IN RELATION TO LEAKED FOOTAGE OF OSCAR PISTORIUS

Video footage aired by Australian broadcaster

Statement by
Brian Webber, Ramsay Webber Inc.

06 July 2014

In October 2013, the Defence Team engaged the services of The Evidence Room, A US-based company specialising in forensic animation.

The company was engaged to visually map the events on the night of the accident. As part of this process, certain video footage was filmed. The “visual mapping” was for trial preparation only and was not intended to be used for any other purpose.

So, would seem OP's legal team underlining original use of video & thereby making sure that it is priviledged so can't be entered into evidence.

According to Twitter gossip (a member of the Pistorius legal team talking to Andrew Harding of the BBC), the Defence didn't add the video to evidence because it was inaccurate.

How can his own reactment be inacurate?

It might have been relating to sizes of rooms/type of staircase etc.

I haven't seen it - was it shot in the actual house does anyone know?

No, it was filmed at his uncles house

That's it for today. Roux was not allowed to consult with the State's appointed psychiatrist and he does not appear, therefore, to be calling his own.

He's double checking that there's absolutely no other witnesses or questions, and then he intends to close his case tomorrow morning. So off they scurry to write their closing arguments.

I feel relieved.

If it wasn't at the same house (unless the layout is identical) I can see how bringing it to court would only muddy the various arguments. Things that are specific to the set up at OP's house are; the passageway to the bathroom - how easy was it for OP to get down. How much space there was at the other side of the bed for him to try to find Reeva. Whether the fans would stretch across the room (though that would probably be discounted due to not finding the cord). How dark it was. How easy it would be for him to run/walk from the room.

So it wasn't an accurate reenactment, and the variables would muddy the water. I can see that.

son what could be the point if filming it?

Is that it for today?

Thanks Looking, I missed the recommencement totally. Did Judge Masipa listen to more argument or did she come straight back & give judgement?

She took a while, but there wasn't much more argument.

Roux: I want to speak to Kotze.

Nel: Well you can't; you have your own psychiatrist to discuss with.

Roux: I think you'll find I can - if you're not calling her as a witness, I can do what I please.

Nel: She's not a witness - she was appointed for the state.

Roux: Are you calling her?

Nel: Maybe. Are you calling yours?

Roux: Maybe.

Nel: If you call yours, I'll call mine. How d'you like them apples?

Masipa: Do you have any case history of the Defence calling a State appointed person?

Roux: Not as such, no. Loads on Defence calling State witnesses though. Bags of it.

Masipa: If you don't understand the single page Psychiatrist report, then consult with your own appointed psychiatrist. Job done. See you all tomorrow.

Some of this may not be precisely what will show on the record.

so what could be the point if filming it?

I honestly couldn't tell you. I'm assuming the Defence had their reasons.

Is that it for today?

Yes, the Defence will close tomorrow, then closing arguments.

If you call yours, I'll call mine. How d'you like them apples?

Looking, that made me laugh.

Thank member and looking for today.

It's the first time I've followed a trial more closely. I haven't listened to much, but have kept up with this thread and (im..... ha) partial news reports and the odd twitter feed. I don't know, I just think is this is the best they can all do? Appreciate the only people that knew what happened were Reeva and OP, and really the rest is time stamps of phone records, then people arriving - a lot is circumstantial. I hope the Steenkamps get some peace of mind; so much that's not cut and dried, confirmed, clear, known.

I'm getting the sense that people are lost by the detail but the overwhelming opinion of friends etx is that he is guilty of shooting Reeva deliberately. But none of my friends are following the case at all.
I agree- it should be clearer what happened. I still feel Frank holds the key and his silence is damning. Without Frank I would probably believe Oscar's version.

Looking I had to go out and didn't know the outcome of this tiff. Thanks for the summarising, I get the drift

On the re-enactment it looked like it took place in a stately home and bore not resemblance to what I imagined OP's gaff was like so really can't see the relevance.

I think they just did it for internal purposes so of course we can't see the point. It's a shame it's been released really.

I do think it's an intrusion of privacy, and unnecessary. Someone, motivated by ??, did not have the morals to keep it where it was meant to be, private. More noise, more distraction.

I didn't feel too worried about the intrusion of OP's privacy as of course the woman he killed has had absolutely no privacy since he killed her

I know that that may sound a childish argument and I will have to sit with it but it really is what I feel
Sounds a bit bleak but when I thought of Ms Steenkamp and how she had been discussed, examined and photographed - poured over because of OP - all thoughts for his privacy were a mile away.
Not very good in terms of justice eh?
This case has made me look at a lot of the aspects of my character that I pretend don't exist or have reasoned and examined away

To be honest, it feels like this trial has gone on for far too long, maybe that's how these things go normally, I don't know. Breaks, pauses, psychiatric evaluation, what feels like a part-time day (although appreciate must be taxing on concentration for all involved).

Yes, you're right, Reeva lost all privacy as a result of being killed. OP still has rights, and you could argue he shouldn't but he does.

It comes to this: do any of these things help Reeva? Only the Judge can help Reeva. How the Steenkamps keep going, I don't know. Hopefully the end is in sight for them so they can get their verdict, and hopefully a sense of justice.

If law and courts are like this generally, I think I'll stick with my analytics job (she says, having bored herself senseless with a particular job today).

If Op cared for anything but for himself then he should have admitted what he did on day 1.

The trial has only gone on for because he is entilited to a fair trial which he is getting.

Looking and member thanks for the summaries (Looking your precis of the argument between Roux and Nel made me ).
I'm glad the leaked video hasn't impacted in any way, as indeed it shouldn't.
I wonder if anyone on this thread has changed their opinion on OP's guilt from their initial response to their current response. I know I've swung from one opinion to the other but ultimately my current response is the same as my initial response. It makes me wonder about the ability of juries to overcome initial prejudices or judgements. Although, admittedly this was always going to be a difficult case because only OP and Reeva know what happened that night.

Originally I felt it was an accident.
Now:
Problem areas for believing OP:

The darkness, I just can't believe that it can be pitch black but you can still navigate.

Not listening/hearing Reeva

Frank not supporting his version. This is a big problem for me.

Problems for the state:

Sound expert was very good and I'm not convinced that the witnesses heard anything relevant

He has stuck to his story and not added helpful details.

Nerf I've wondered about Frank too. At first I thought it was quite damning that he wasn't a witness but after seeing witnesses pulled apart by Nel I think Frank could have completely supported OP's account and still have ended up divulging information on the stand that wasn't helpful. And if he had done so it would have impacted on Frank's future employment prospects too. So, taking that into account, I now feel I can't read anything into Frank's decision at all.