JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,350
BB: So in a sense Nel has tied up almost every single possibility as far as making sure OP goes away for a long time. Barry Roux of course is having none of that is he?
JG: Yes, and just to clarify what weve just been talking about, all the other evidence about the hearing of a woman screaming and all that is really facts and factors and circumstances that are relevant to these core factors. So we must understand that even if you didnt have any other evidence, and you only had what weve just been talking about, and the Court accepts Nels argument that it must reject Oscars evidence, it would have to find him guilty. So as I said to you before, it really boils down to that. If Oscars version is rejected, and Nel is arguing that it must be rejected, he must be found guilty.
BB: I have to ask you this though. Barry Roux as he began to lay out what he is going to be arguing, says, You cant ignore the timeline. He says, The defence, or rather the State, hasnt at all bothered with the fact that there were differences in when different sounds might have been heard. And for the defences case, thats a crucial thing because if the shots went out at 3:12 or thereabouts, it then gives Oscar time to scream which explains what the ear witnesses brought by the State might have heard, and of course it accounts for the second set of sounds that the defence says happened because the cricket bat was beating down the door to break it open. Surely Barry Roux has a point there?
JG: No. He has a point because its critical to the defence in terms of the defence perception that Oscar must be believed. In order to have Oscar believed, he has to advance this argument that you cannot ignore the timeline. To the defence its important that the State witnesses be disbelieved or their evidence be rejected. I am saying and Im sticking my neck out that at the fundamental level, all that is actually irrelevant. The timeline might be completely messed up between all these witnesses. If the court does not believe Oscar, or rather if the court disbelieves Oscar as to why he killed Reeva, the court has no option for the reasons that Ulrich has set out, but to convict him. Whatever findings about the timeline there are and about the screaming and cricket bat and all that, that in a sense is actually, not irrelevant, but sort of a red herring.
BB: Ulrich Roux, youre a defence attorney, put yourself in Barry Rouxs big shoes no doubt. How do you with what Nel was saying today, that OP was not only a weak witness, that he was mendacious? How do you deal with making sure that the court looks favourably on your client? I mean where does Barry Roux go to from here?
UR: We said it from the beginning, and we maintained it throughout the trial, that the trial was always going to be about Oscars testimony. And unfortunately it doesnt matter how much you prepare your client or witnesses, you cannot foresee how they will react in the witness box and how they will withstand cross-examination. Now it is of course everyones perception that he was a weak witness, that he didnt testify well. Nel outlined how he was evasive, he was emotional, he got angry with Nel, he changed his versions and all those reasons, but the only thing that the defence is left to do now is to stick to their version and their version was that he made a mistake in shooting Reeva, that he thought there was an intruder, he honestly believed his life was in danger and that the only way that the only way he could protect his own and Reevas lives was to shoot whoever was behind that door. Now they attempted to back that up by all the psychological evidence that was led and all the character evidence that was led on Oscars behalf as well, that hed gone through all these traumatic experiences throughout his life and that that was the reason why he thought that his life was in danger. Now to answer your question, it is difficult to deal with the way your client testified, it is of course, and that testimony is on the record. But if I had to give them advice it would be Stick to your story. Do not attack the States case as such now. Stick to your version and try and convince the Judge that it is reasonably possibly true. Now hes already shown his hand and indicated that hes going to attack the police investigation of the matter, but I dont think it is really material because of those reasons we said earlier. He picked up his gun, he killed whoever was behind that door. The fact that the scene was tampered with to an extent afterwards, after she was shot and killed, or interfered with, does it really have a big meaning? Is it really material? Do the timelines really play such a big part, as Judge Greenland said now? Those are the things that they need to consider. But they can only hammer on their case and their version.
BB: Judge Greenland, if I may, Barry Roux says all those things are material. He says that what the State is choosing to ignore are material facts.
JG: Can I put it this way. Its in the interests of the defence to subvert all the evidence that contradicts Oscar evidence before and the evidence thereafter because it then provides the basis for them submitting to the court, The only explanation you have of the killing is from Oscar. And for the reasons that our colleagues have often told us on this show, its the reasonably possible true story. You might not like it, but unless you can actually disbelieve him on jurisprudential grounds, you have no option but to acquit. So in a nutshell, this is to reach a stage where the defence can submit that the court can only go on Oscars version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKGrBLfhBs&list=UUHTN50mKYmmeg1-HBURUsg
JG: Yes, and just to clarify what weve just been talking about, all the other evidence about the hearing of a woman screaming and all that is really facts and factors and circumstances that are relevant to these core factors. So we must understand that even if you didnt have any other evidence, and you only had what weve just been talking about, and the Court accepts Nels argument that it must reject Oscars evidence, it would have to find him guilty. So as I said to you before, it really boils down to that. If Oscars version is rejected, and Nel is arguing that it must be rejected, he must be found guilty.
BB: I have to ask you this though. Barry Roux as he began to lay out what he is going to be arguing, says, You cant ignore the timeline. He says, The defence, or rather the State, hasnt at all bothered with the fact that there were differences in when different sounds might have been heard. And for the defences case, thats a crucial thing because if the shots went out at 3:12 or thereabouts, it then gives Oscar time to scream which explains what the ear witnesses brought by the State might have heard, and of course it accounts for the second set of sounds that the defence says happened because the cricket bat was beating down the door to break it open. Surely Barry Roux has a point there?
JG: No. He has a point because its critical to the defence in terms of the defence perception that Oscar must be believed. In order to have Oscar believed, he has to advance this argument that you cannot ignore the timeline. To the defence its important that the State witnesses be disbelieved or their evidence be rejected. I am saying and Im sticking my neck out that at the fundamental level, all that is actually irrelevant. The timeline might be completely messed up between all these witnesses. If the court does not believe Oscar, or rather if the court disbelieves Oscar as to why he killed Reeva, the court has no option for the reasons that Ulrich has set out, but to convict him. Whatever findings about the timeline there are and about the screaming and cricket bat and all that, that in a sense is actually, not irrelevant, but sort of a red herring.
BB: Ulrich Roux, youre a defence attorney, put yourself in Barry Rouxs big shoes no doubt. How do you with what Nel was saying today, that OP was not only a weak witness, that he was mendacious? How do you deal with making sure that the court looks favourably on your client? I mean where does Barry Roux go to from here?
UR: We said it from the beginning, and we maintained it throughout the trial, that the trial was always going to be about Oscars testimony. And unfortunately it doesnt matter how much you prepare your client or witnesses, you cannot foresee how they will react in the witness box and how they will withstand cross-examination. Now it is of course everyones perception that he was a weak witness, that he didnt testify well. Nel outlined how he was evasive, he was emotional, he got angry with Nel, he changed his versions and all those reasons, but the only thing that the defence is left to do now is to stick to their version and their version was that he made a mistake in shooting Reeva, that he thought there was an intruder, he honestly believed his life was in danger and that the only way that the only way he could protect his own and Reevas lives was to shoot whoever was behind that door. Now they attempted to back that up by all the psychological evidence that was led and all the character evidence that was led on Oscars behalf as well, that hed gone through all these traumatic experiences throughout his life and that that was the reason why he thought that his life was in danger. Now to answer your question, it is difficult to deal with the way your client testified, it is of course, and that testimony is on the record. But if I had to give them advice it would be Stick to your story. Do not attack the States case as such now. Stick to your version and try and convince the Judge that it is reasonably possibly true. Now hes already shown his hand and indicated that hes going to attack the police investigation of the matter, but I dont think it is really material because of those reasons we said earlier. He picked up his gun, he killed whoever was behind that door. The fact that the scene was tampered with to an extent afterwards, after she was shot and killed, or interfered with, does it really have a big meaning? Is it really material? Do the timelines really play such a big part, as Judge Greenland said now? Those are the things that they need to consider. But they can only hammer on their case and their version.
BB: Judge Greenland, if I may, Barry Roux says all those things are material. He says that what the State is choosing to ignore are material facts.
JG: Can I put it this way. Its in the interests of the defence to subvert all the evidence that contradicts Oscar evidence before and the evidence thereafter because it then provides the basis for them submitting to the court, The only explanation you have of the killing is from Oscar. And for the reasons that our colleagues have often told us on this show, its the reasonably possible true story. You might not like it, but unless you can actually disbelieve him on jurisprudential grounds, you have no option but to acquit. So in a nutshell, this is to reach a stage where the defence can submit that the court can only go on Oscars version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKGrBLfhBs&list=UUHTN50mKYmmeg1-HBURUsg
