Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[kaos]

Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?

 

[Estelle]

IMO Roux thinks he has done his best to represent OP and there is nothing else he can do as the further witnesses have probably refused to lie on OP's behalf.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?

I would doubt very much that he believes in OP's innocence but he will have done his very best for his client .

 

[K.T]

I haven't had a chance to listen to any testimony from today yet, but from Twitter, does it sound like Roux was laying more ground work today for an appeal?

He said that they won't call Dr. Fine because he had a heart attack and there were many more witnesses that were not called because they feared the media scrutiny. However, WhoopWhoop did say that these witnesses could have been subpoenaed.

Thoughts?

Yes, definitely. Good point, here's the lawyer Dadic who believes the same:

David Dadic @DavidDadic

Roux just alluded towards unfair trial. Witnesses who wouldn't testify due to their voices being heard. First ground for appeal I suggest.

 

[Nausicaa]

Roux: A number of our witnesses refused to testify because they did not want their voices heard worldwide....


Is he SURE that is the reason? lol

Well, it's half the reason, isn't it ?

 

[Nausicaa]

I remember Masipa saying that she didn't read newspapers, look at billboards etc re the case. I believe it would be an utter travesty of justice if she doesn't see it

That's rather strong Judgejudi. Trials would never end if every new evidence broadcast in the media had to be shown in court.

 

[Nausicaa]

She was a journalist herself so I doubt she doesn't read newspapers.

Having been a journalist herself may be why she doesn't read newspapers.

 

[kaos]

Having been a journalist herself may be why she doesn't read newspapers.

Very possible

 

[Nausicaa]

I think Nel's done enough without it.

I am flummoxed by its release though. I'm currently thinking that either the Pistorius clan made it to garner general public (and not trial watchers) sympathy whilst waiting for the verdict and it got released early by them as a last ditch effort to tempt Nel into mentioning it in court and thus somehow wrangle a mistrial. Or, alternatively, someone from Channel 7 has been watching the trial and realised that the footage of OP walking on his stumps, at rhat particular time, would result in massive public interest. (And publicity =$ which trumps assurances to the Pistorius clan).

What does everyone else think?

My guess is that it was released by the Pistorius clan to turn public opinion in OP's favour (an effect it did tend to produce on those who had not been following the evidence critically). I suspect that the DT genuinely did not want the thing shown and are genuinely outraged and may indeed have thought it was obtained illegally because Uncle A probably went behind their backs, realising that they would disapprove and thinking (mistakenly) that he knew better.

 

[Nausicaa]

Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?

Roux is far too intelligent not to realise that OP is guilty. That is not a reason for not defending him, but what is inexcusable is deliberately misleading the court.

 

[zwiebel]

Is an appeal possible on the grounds that witnesses wouldn't testify and your own defence team didn't subpoena them?

If it is, and there was another trial, those witnesses would have to be forced to testify and could be hostile. I really think if there had been vital eyewitness testimony to back up OP's version(s) on the shooting of Reeva and the firearm charges, Roux would have forced them to appear in court.

Most of the eyewitness testimonies contradicted OP's version. I think that's the real reason more were not called. Or, defence really didn't think those other 'witnesses' had anything to contribute.

 

[Jake18]

Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?

The degree of tailoring suggests to me that he knew OP was guilty. It's a shame in a way that we didn't see him with a more substantial case as he's obviously very very good.

 

[Nausicaa]

Yes, definitely. Good point, here's the lawyer Dadic who believes the same:

Difficult for me to see how a verdict could be overturned on the basis of such an unverifiable allegation - no guilty verdict could stand.

 

[Jake18]

Is an appeal possible on the grounds that witnesses wouldn't testify and your own defence team didn't subpoenae them?

If it is, and there was another trial, those witnesses would have to be forced to testify and could be hostile. I really think if there had been vital eyewitness testimony to back up OP's version(s) on the shooting of Reeva and the firearm charges, Roux would have forced them to appear in court.

Most of the eyewitness testimonies contradicted OP's version. I think that's the real reason more were not called. Or, defence really didn't think those other 'witnesses' had anything to contribute.

Or there actually were no other witnesses but he's aware of how light the DT's case is.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Do you have a link, pretty pls?

Here you go, Scholtz full psych report courtesy of Lisa Salinger's Juror 13 blog.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/

 

[zwiebel]

Roux will never have asked his client if he is guilty or innocent, I don't believe. No good defence lawyer ever does that. They have to go into court believing what their client has told them. That's their job.

 

[Nausicaa]

Outstanding summary from the Telegraph here.

 

[zoran]

IMO Roux thinks he has done his best to represent OP and there is nothing else he can do as the further witnesses have probably refused to lie on OP's behalf.

On that note I bet the professor regrets his contribution as Nel did his credibility some damage. I bet the Proff thought that he would bamboozle him with medical terminology

 

[Nausicaa]

Roux will never have asked his client if he is guilty or innocent, I don't believe. No good defence lawyer ever does that. They have to go into court believing what their client has told them. That's their job.

But is it intellectually possible to believe everything that OP has said along the months of build-up to the trial and the countless changes in his story ?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Good point. If Roux had any kind of ear/eye witness account whose testimony could have benefitted his client you can bet your last dollar/cent/rand that he'd have subpoenaed them to testify.

If an advocate has to subpoena one of his own witnesses, you can bet that witness will be hostile and won't help your case at all.