Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?
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?
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.
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
That's rather strong Judgejudi. Trials would never end if every new evidence broadcast in the media had to be shown in court.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
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.
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?
Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?
Does anybody think Roux actually believed his client or was just doing his job and putting forward his best defence?
Yes, definitely. Good point, here's the lawyer Dadic who believes the same:
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.
Do you have a link, pretty pls?
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.
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 ?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.
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.