The video was filmed by an American company hired by the defence to reconstruct the shooting but Pistoriuss lawyers chose not to show it in court. Theyre furious that the footage has apparently been sold on to Australias Channel 7. In a statement the athletes legal team said the video was obtained illegally. While the Pistorius family described its broadcast as a staggering breach of trust and an invasion of privacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyoiuYbaO8
Judge Greenland is subsequently interviewed by Jason McCrossan:
JM: The Australian television station Channel 7 has come under lots of criticism mainly by the defence team for leaking footage of OP re-enacting the fatal shooting of his girlfriend which showed the South African Olympian stumbling forward awkwardly without his prosthetic legs and holding his arm out in front of him as if he was carrying a gun, the footage suggesting that Pistorius may be more mobile without his prosthetic legs than his defence team has claimed during the trial. Do you think this is likely to be damaging?
JG: Theres a lot of discussion about it and we dont know all the facts at the moment,
but from my point of view theres a very, very, very important issue that now has arisen. A lawyer/advocate cannot lead evidence in court that he or she knows to be untrue. Now Dermans evidence in particular seemed and I put it no higher than that seemed to say that Oscar had very, very little mobility. A short video that I saw seemed to suggest that he had just about normal mobility in terms of an effectiveness test as opposed to an efficiency test.
So his evidence appears to be irreconcilable with what weve been shown on that video which in simple language would mean that he has lied and it would also mean that if the defence team, if the lawyers and/or advocates that are acting for Oscar knew the true position and then led this evidence to the contrary, the implications and repercussions of that are enormous and could actually lead to disbarment. I am saying this simply as a possibility, Jason. At the moment we dont the issue is not clear. Im simply saying that on what I see on the video and when I compare that to Dermans evidence,
potentially theres a very serious problem here.
JM:
I saw a statement earlier on which said the prosecution team have not seen that video. However, what about Judge Masipa? Do you think shes likely to have seen the video and if and when she does, do you think shell have to act on it, and what would that action look like?
JG: Your question is this: Is she aware of it? The answer is yes and no. As a human being I have no doubt whatsoever that shes aware of it. As a judge she is not aware of it. In other words, she cannot take any cognizance of that video until it is actually presented in court, and that I believe will probably happen simply because
if I were Gerrie Nel I would leave no stone unturned but to expose the existence of this video because it gives the lie or seems to give the lie to the evidence of Professor Derman. You know, Derman said that as regards disabled persons and OP, flight was not an option because he had no mobility.
This completely torpedoes the whole premise of his evidence and has a knock-on effect. So I suspect that State counsel will make application one way or the other to get this video before the court.
JM: And so does that then mean that all Mr Dermans evidence could be just struck out of the court records?
JG: No. What it would mean, if what I suspect is right,
it would mean that at the end of the trial the State would be able to argue that he has been guilty of mendacity and that therefore his evidence he has no credibility and any reliability. It would destroy his evidence. And I have said there are other repercussions.
If I was the Court I would want to know from the defence why this evidence was led in view of the fact that this video existed. It seems improbable you see,
this video was commissioned as part of an experts report and the person who conducted the test and compiled the report came to the conclusion that it was only consistent with innocence on the part of OP it therefore seems improbable that the video was not made available to the defence.
http://www.podcastpedia.org/podcasts...is-N-Greenland
All of the above makes sense to me. So the DT hire the company to make the video and then don't watch it - balderdash. I have absolutely no respect for the defence team at all. We've all seen the smoke and mirrors, badgering of the ear witnesses, particularly Michelle Berger, to the point where everyone was talking about it, the delaying tactics used by Roux - his next couple of witnesses weren't available because they have young children when it turns out they in fact work ... the list goes on and on.
To expose the total hypocrisy of this verdict in light of what we know at least informs others who aren't so aware.
:judge:
