minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,152
- Reaction score
- 2,110
Everyone has a bias... everyone on earth has a bias as to what they heard, what they saw.. its a given. Roux is paid to have a bias, he is employed by Oscar to maintain and present a bias.. Nel is paid and employed by the Republic of South Africa to present a bias... it is a meaningless accusation, and the bottom line here is who has the strongest reason to have a bias.... no question that platform is occupied by Oscar.. his life depends on his bias being the one that prevails.
Witnesses being catalogued as 'biased' is redundant.. Any one who is a witness for the prosecution has ipso facto a bias.. ditto for the witnesses for the defence, its intrinsic. It is the position they have been put in by Oscars shooting of Reeva.. if he hadn't shot her, would they be biased? could they be portrayed as biased? Absolutely not. This applies to both sides of the case in equal and exact measure. That is.. the witness for the defence of Oscar are and must be as biased, logically..
None of these people, the ones already testified, the ones to come, would be there , including Nel and Roux , if Oscar hadn't pulled the trigger. Oscar wouldn't be in court having his bias towards his actions being presented.
Its a huge huge stretch to conclude that Ms Burger, for example, woke up that night from the sounds she heard and instantly formed an inaccurate bias against Oscar. To assume that, there has to be some previous interchange between Oscar and Ms Burger that provoked a desire to form (a) a bias and (b) an inaccurate and malicious bias and then , astonishingly , perjure herself in a murder trial.. That is one hell of a leap of logic, so huge it cannot be even put in the rational basket..
I don't think she became biased the moment she woke up and heard screaming - I think her bias developed over time. It may be totally unintentional and even unknown to her - like confirmation bias.