Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point.

One thing I'm was a bit surprised at was that an Australian television company got the exclusive scoop on the world.

This was an American company on American soil and the US media (eg TMZ amongst others) live for stuff like this and pay top dollars.

Makes perfect sense….

Evidence Room = USA

Channel 7 = Australia

Commissioner = South Africa

… makes for a purposefully difficult legal arena !

The video had to be released in an english speaking country excluding USA and South Africa…. available choices were UK, Australia and Canada… Canada is too small and has a french speaking population… so it was between UK and Australia.
 
A 50-50 poll result would certainly be the most interesting and desirable outcome for any Broadcaster… they are not obligated by Law or any stretch of the imagination to produce an honest poll… it's only a dummy poll to attract more viewers and web traffic which they can turn into lucrative advertising contracts.

I still think that this was done as a focus group ...it was posted and they had a lot of people hired to do multiple ng to falsely show that a lot of people supported him.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
 
No no no, Nel was using boyfriend girlfriend and who would or would not be given special privilege to accompany OP on an Olympic trip; silly stuff that PVZ said. Implying that Reeva was like no other girlfriend that OP had ever met because he wanted her to travel with him. Nel destroyed PVZs claim by having him read emails from OP to PVZ where OP requested that Samantha Taylor go to the London games with him and asked PVZ to help arrange their travel. Of course PVZ could not recall any of it. SMH

So if Nel will destroy a defense witness' credibility with that type of thing, I would have trouble entertaining any argument that Nel would simply let this opportunity to bash Dr. D with this video evidence, which clearly demonstrates that his expert testimony last week is rubbish. There's no way that Nel does not use some portions of the video tomorrow morning. In my heavily biased opinion. :smile:

I think that the PT has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I worry that if the PT brings up this video, there could be a new grounds for appeal and perhaps that was the purpose of the DT or whomever to release this video.

Wouldn't it be better to just keep this video in the court of public opinion and question the Dr. on the facts that are on record when court resumes on Monday?
 
Good point.

One thing I'm was a bit surprised at was that an Australian television company got the exclusive scoop on the world.

This was an American company on American soil and the US media (eg TMZ amongst others) live for stuff like this and pay top dollars.

My observation is that the trial is not viewed in the US with as much enthusiasm as it is in the UK and AU, and Pistorius is not as big of a celebrity here either. I had really never heard of him or seen a photo of him prior to the murder. TMZ would love an exclusive but the price was likely prohibitive to them buying it; TMZ just has the website and a hour long show that is broadcast during the lunch hours weekdays. They are not a big platform for something like this. CNN could have used it, or CBS which has an hour long weekend prime time news program "60 Minutes," but again the price was probably prohibitive.
 
My guess, Roux will approach Nel in the morning to discuss this & I wouldn't be surprised if they have a meeting in chambers with the judge prior to trial
 
I still think that this was done as a focus group ...it was posted and they had a lot of people hired to do multiple ng to falsely show that a lot of people supported him.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

If not a bogus poll why is multiple votes allowed ?

Why hire people when a bogus poll is so much cheaper and far easier to manipulate the results ?

Why would OP want or care about a focus group result ?

If OP wanted an honest poll result, the multiple vote would have not been allowed.
 
To those who watched the programme, how would you compare Oscars emotion recreating the incident compared to he's emotion when discussing the incident in court?.
 
Here is the Defense's statement in full:

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.

It has now emerged that an Australian broadcaster has obtained some of this footage from The Evidence Room and has just gone to air with it.

We wish to make it very clear that the material that has been aired was obtained illegally and in breach of the non-disclosure agreement with The Evidence Room. Its usage also constitutes a breach of privilege as this material was produced for trial purposes on the instructions of a commissioner, and the ownership of the copyright vests in the commissioner. No permission for the disclosure thereof has been given.

For the family, the airing of this footage constitutes a staggering breach of trust and an invasion of the family’s privacy.

It has come to our attention that Channel 7 purchased this footage unlawfully. In addition, during our engagement with Channel 7, we received an undertaking that they would not air any of the material before the end of the trial.

Whilst we cannot imagine how any of the footage would not support Oscar’s version, we will only be in a position to comment further once we have had the opportunity to study what has been aired.

- ENDS -

BIB - This makes no sense to me. Prior to the show airing, the DT communicated with Channel 7 regarding their illegal purchase of the footage but rather than issuing a cease and desist order, they accepted "an undertaking" that Channel 7 wouldn't air the material until after the trial?! :confused:

Very fishy. MOO
 
Here is the Defense's statement in full:

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.

It has now emerged that an Australian broadcaster has obtained some of this footage from The Evidence Room and has just gone to air with it.

We wish to make it very clear that the material that has been aired was obtained illegally and in breach of the non-disclosure agreement with The Evidence Room. Its usage also constitutes a breach of privilege as this material was produced for trial purposes on the instructions of a commissioner, and the ownership of the copyright vests in the commissioner. No permission for the disclosure thereof has been given.

For the family, the airing of this footage constitutes a staggering breach of trust and an invasion of the family’s privacy.

It has come to our attention that Channel 7 purchased this footage unlawfully. In addition, during our engagement with Channel 7, we received an undertaking that they would not air any of the material before the end of the trial.

Whilst we cannot imagine how any of the footage would not support Oscar’s version, we will only be in a position to comment further once we have had the opportunity to study what has been aired.

- ENDS -

BBM

In regard to my bolding above, what does that mean? When were they 'engaged' with 7? How could 7 have "illegally" gotten the video if the defense team is saying they were 'engaged' with them and gained some sort of promise not to air footage until after the trial? How could it be a surprise now that they were in possession of footage?
 
"What we can take from the video is that Oscar is a lot more mobile on his stumps than his defence team has tried to make out," said Martin Hood, a criminal lawyer based in Johannesburg.

"I think it's very damaging for Oscar, in the sense that it's showing how mobile he is," said Hood. "But whether it can be admitted in the legal proceedings remains to be seen."

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...re-enacts-steenkamp-shooting-in-leaked-video/
 
Well, the Telegraph says there's a clip showing OP trying to remove 'Reeva' (his sister in the clip) from the toilet room on his stumps:

"In another clip, he is shown struggling to pull his sister out of the lavatory on his stumps. The defence account is that Pistorius had by this stage put on his prosthetic legs. The state say he was still on his stumps.

However, it is possible The Evidence Room filmed Pistorius re-enacting both his own version and the state’s, in order to show which was more feasible."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dcast-of-Steenkamp-shooting-re-enactment.html
 
It makes me angry & sick when I think of how the DT had OP bare his stumps in court. Then had the judge & assessors step down from the bench to view just how bad OP's stumps were, with the long winded narrative given by Derman during the viewing of his stumps...grrrrr
 
ADMIN: PLEASE READ ALL THIS INFO BEFORE DECIDING!!

(Jrust ead news here on the breaking video and word that it's been yanked. Maybe someone upstream has something, already, but rather than take time to look, I jumped on it right away to see what I could find.

I hope admin will PLEASE allow this link because it does NOT connect to the clip that's been pulled. It simply connects to the original trailer for the Channel 7 Australia, Sunday Night Documentary, "Running Scared," on which the clip was aired. The trailer is less than 1 minute but it does shows him running.

http://ewn.co.za/2014/07/06/Oscar-Pistorius-reenacts-the-night-he-shot-and-killed-Steenkamp


Even better quality of this same trailer just up on Youtube ...AND now safely downloaded to my desktop!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVM2hZ-CUI


News story with longer clips from the Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDMUquz0tA
 
ADMIN: PLEASE READ ALL THIS INFO BEFORE DECIDING!!

(Jrust ead news here on the breaking video and word that it's been yanked. Maybe someone upstream has something, already, but rather than take time to look, I jumped on it right away to see what I could find.

I hope admin will PLEASE allow this link because it does NOT connect to the clip that's been pulled. It simply connects to the original trailer for the Sunday Night tv program on which the clip was aired. The trailer is less than 1 minute but it does shows him running.

http://ewn.co.za/2014/07/06/Oscar-Pistorius-reenacts-the-night-he-shot-and-killed-Steenkamp

The full length trailer is also on YouTube now. Just do a search for "leaked Pistorius" and look for videos uploaded in the last 24 hours.

Most of us outside of Australia are hoping to see the full length video some time down the road.
 
I cant view the video.. Im in the UK.. says im in the wrong location to view? I changed my location to the usa using modify headers.. still unable to see this bizarrreeeeeee video
 
I think I must be misunderstanding this. If this company does animations couldn't they have had OP demonstrating several different versions then just piece together whichever one fit best after OP had testified?
 
I think I must be misunderstanding this. If this company does animations couldn't they have had OP demonstrating several different versions then just piece together whichever one fit best after OP had testified?

I think the defence can say a bunch of things including they were trying out alternative scenarios so that they could prove the PT wrong.

I have only seen the trailer so far, but the two things that I think can be taken away are:

1. His mobility on stumps
2. His screams
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
1,623
Total visitors
1,734

Forum statistics

Threads
598,624
Messages
18,083,953
Members
230,677
Latest member
Mary0309
Back
Top