Trial Discussion Thread #48

[DebinGA]

“Oscar Pistorius murder trial: What to expect in the closing arguments”

http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/...rial-what-to-expect-in-the-closing-arguments/


Worth a quick read but probably exactly what most of us expect.

From link above: "Also, the defence is likely to rely on the testimony of pathologist Dr Jan Botha and anaesthetist Professor Aina Lundgren, who said it was impossible to say how long before her death Steenkamp ate, to counter the state’s evidence on this aspect."

But iirc Prof. Lundgren admitted she didn't know how much food remained in RS's stomach at time of death. When Nel told her the amount, Lundgren testified that if OP's story of their eating at 7 p.m. and not later were true, Reeva must have consumed at least 2 liters of food at dinner.

My limited and perhaps faulty understanding of SA closings is that both sides submit a lengthy written version first, then present an abridged version before the judge, completed in only a day or two. The judge and her two assessors then take as long as they need, usually at least several weeks or longer, to study the voluminous reports and come to a just decision. This system puts the evidence first and negates OP's star power/courtroom theatrics imo.

 

[eimajjjj]

From link above: "Also, the defence is likely to rely on the testimony of pathologist Dr Jan Botha and anaesthetist Professor Aina Lundgren, who said it was impossible to say how long before her death Steenkamp ate, to counter the state’s evidence on this aspect."

But iirc Prof. Lundgren admitted she didn't know how much food remained in RS's stomach at time of death. When Nel told her the amount, Lundgren testified that if OP's story of their eating at 7 p.m. and not later were true, Reeva must have consumed at least 2 liters of food at dinner.

My limited and perhaps faulty understanding of SA closings is that both sides submit a lengthy written version first, then present an abridged version before the judge, completed in only a day or two. The judge and her two assessors then take as long as they need, usually at least several weeks or longer, to study the voluminous reports and come to a just decision. This system puts the evidence first and negates OP's star power/courtroom theatrics imo.

I think it was actually 4 L of food in the end! However, as improbable as that is, there still remains an element of uncertainty thus I don't think this will be used as any hard evidence. That will come in the way of the witness statements, contradictions and impossibilities in OP's timeline.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Reeva met OP on 4 November 2012. The following are some of her tweets and Whatsapp messages until he murdered her.

Reeva Steenkamp @reevasteenkamp 11 Nov 2012
They said. Reeva baby use your head. But I chose to use my heart instead.

She departed for Jamaica on 12 November and returned on 25 November.

25 Nov 2012: “The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places.” Wise words for an amazing person @OscarPistorius

28 Nov 2012: When someone makes a big mistake & is evidently wrong but turns it around to make you feel like the wrongdoer. That.

3 Dec 2012: I'm so disappointed in myself today, more than anyone else. I never learn from the past. How do you grow if you never learn?

6 Dec 2012: Wondering what my stalker is up to? Kinda miss him lurking around tonight …

10 Dec 2012: Great gym session with @gi_myers missed @OscarPistorius and @Kevin_Ko_Lerena though! Hope you boys are having a great day X

Retweeted by Reeva Steenkamp
Oscar Pistorius @OscarPistorius 11 Dec 2012: Everything happens for a reason. Practice some faith in yourself and others. Pray and trust that His will shall prevail.

15 Dec 2012: Being around this bridal party makes me appreciate my friends & look forward to the day I get married to the man of my dreams.

19 Dec 2012: Raise your hand if 2012 was a crazy *advertiser censored* year for you. You learnt hard lessons. You got hurt. You survived. You're the future king of 2013.

20 Dec 2012: Dear boys of today. Let's drop our handbags and pick up our balls. Sincerely, the women of yesterday, today and tomorrow ))

25 Dec 2012: We have a problem @OscarPistorius pic.twitter.com/ugUZYxrY

26 Dec 2012: You truly are the devil reincarnated.

26 Dec 2012: OK. But where ARE you????

27 Dec 2012: In 2013 I will speak my mind. Walk where my feet dream to tread. Share company with those who make my heart smile. Make my dreams a reality.

28 Dec 2012: Planning a wild week of debauchery with @Iamfomo in London next year!!! Yes please and dankie wow.
Isn’t this interesting. Reeva was already planning a trip to London and not with OP. “dankie” means “thank you”. Iamfomo is one of her girlfriends as I discovered in an earlier tweet the same day.

29 Dec 2012: I am who I am by the grace of God. Nothing more. Nothing less. If He can love me as I am, then so should you I guess. - Me

31 Dec 2012: I've learnt many valuable lessons this year. Thank you 2012 for the education! Above all, "trust your inner voice" stands out for me. #2013 (Why didn't she listen to that voice?)

16 Jan 2012: Out of every misery, you WILL find your rainbow. A lesson. A truth. Nothing is a wasted experience if you look with willing eyes!

17 Jan 2012: "You built your walls so high, no one could climb it. But I'm gonna try boy ... Would you let me see beneath your beautiful ..."

19 Jan 2013 – Whatsapp from Reeva: (Edited for brevity) “I wasn't a stripper or a ho. I certainly have never been a prude and I've had fun but all innocent and without harmful repercussions.”

27 Jan 2013 – the very long Whatsapp message fromReeva: He ruined her best friend’s engagement, picked on her incessantly, denied she was flirting, felt sick that he’d made a scene, complained of his jealousy, mentioned his tantrums, she’s scared of him sometimes, he snaps at her … It just goes on and on and on.

His pathetic response was all about him. He was sick, tired, she left his side to talk to another guy, “I was 30 minutes late and I know you don't like it when I drive fast but then you could've asked Gina to drive herself so that we wouldn't have to”, she should have whispered in his ear if she didn’t like the song playing, he was upset, had a headache, and apologized for criticizing her for putting on an accent.

28 Jan 2013: Sometimes your blessings lay beneath a mountain of tribulations. Be patient and see them through. You will appreciate them far more!

1 Feb 2013: He certainly doesn't need more followers but he's beautiful to look at & says some smart stuff too (photo of OP was attached)

8 Feb 2013: When it takes you an entire day to try and compose a fitting response, a lacking one at that, rather leave it. It's just substandard.

8 Feb 2013 – Whatsapp message from Reeva: (Edited for brevity) I didn't think you would criticize me for doing that especially not so loudly so that others could hear. I might joke around and be all Tom boyish at times but I regard myself as a lady and I didn't feel like one tonight after the way you treated me when we left. I'm a person too and I appreciate that you invited me out tonight and I realize that you get harassed but I am trying my best to make you happy and I feel as though you sometimes never are, no matter the effort I put in. I can't be attacked by outsiders for dating you and be attacked by you -- the one person I deserve protection from.

8 Feb 2013: Before you lift a pen or raise your voice to criticize, acknowledge people's circumstances. You don't know their struggles. Their journey.

9 Feb 2013: Excited for a chilled Saturday evening in with good food, movies, popcorn, frozen yoghurt & my boo.

9 Feb 2013: I woke up in a happy safe home this morning. Not everyone did. Speak out against the rape of individuals…

13 Feb 2013: It's a beautiful day! Make things happen. Starting my day off with a yummy healthy shake from my boo

I can’t help feeling that a lot of the tweets were about him.
Bang … bang, bang, bang. A beautiful, caring young woman with so much to give, kindhearted, generous and looking forward to getting married one day gone forever.

Thank you, Judgejudi, for this excellent compilation. Great work!

Tweets, texts and messages certainly do help illuminate the soul, don't they? A snapshot of one's life. (OP's twitter account is also very telling - it's almost entirely about himself, either directly or indirectly.)

“I wasn't a stripper or a ho. I certainly have never been a prude and I've had fun but all innocent and without harmful repercussions.” - Reeva Jan 19 201 3 Whatsapp

This says way more about Oscar than Reeva. WTF were they discussing that would even cause her to say something like that?!! She was very clearly DEFENDING herself. Oscar must have accused her of some terribly dreadful things (but whatever OP does is always fine, i.e. her reference to his “double standard&#8221.

This is more proof upon proof that Oscar most definitely has very serious control, anger and jealousy issues - prime requisites for domestic violence. Personally, I think the good docs at Westkoppies are full of sh#t (were they, too, “starstruck” as OP played them like a fiddle?) - this guy’s got freaking major issues and yes, I do mean NPD and sociopathy.

Shooting and killing a trapped, terrified, defenseless woman behind a closed, locked door and then blaming everyone but God is NOT a sign of mental health.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I am relistening to OP's cross examination by Nel. Fascinating to go back, now that all information we are going to get from the trial is in.

This struck me:

Nel: "There were only two people in the house that night, is that correct?"

OP: "Yes, Milady, that is correct."

Knowing now that "Frank the Houseman" was in a bedroom located adjacent to the kitchen - not in a separate building or anything like that - how could Nel have allowed this answer to stand? Did everybody involved in the case just agree to pretend Frank was not there? I just don't understand this at all. Even if Frank would not testify, why pretend he was not even there? Or, perhaps better to ask, why would Nel phrase a question in this particular manner?

As for not knowing all the facts in this case, so many of them are like this. Sometimes the books that are written after a case is over reveal more of the behind the scenes details. After the Scott Peterson trial was over, the adopted sister Ann Bird's book was quite revealing and had several unknown details about Scott and his mother Jackie. (Boy, that Jackie Peterson was a piece of work, wasn't she?)

 

[eimajjjj]

This may be an incredibly silly question, but who's the big guy who's next to Nel the entire time watching him adoringly?!

EDIT: Van Aardt. Was a silly question!

 

[HoolyDooly]

I wish I felt more hope that the Judge will convict OP of murder but she appeared to protect him too often during Cross by Nel where I felt it was up to his DT to do so if they thought it was necessary.

It probably is a duty of care thing as it is her court and responsibility as Judge of proceedings from what I saw. Can anyone outline this the SOP of the courts in SA

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I am relistening to OP's cross examination by Nel. Fascinating to go back, now that all information we are going to get from the trial is in.

This struck me:

Nel: "There were only two people in the house that night, is that correct?"

OP: "Yes, Milady, that is correct."

Knowing now that "Frank the Houseman" was in a bedroom located adjacent to the kitchen - not in a separate building or anything like that - how could Nel have allowed this answer to stand? Did everybody involved in the case just agree to pretend Frank was not there? I just don't understand this at all. Even if Frank would not testify, why pretend he was not even there? Or, perhaps better to ask, why would Nel phrase a question in this particular manner?

As for not knowing all the facts in this case, so many of them are like this. Sometimes the books that are written after a case is over reveal more of the behind the scenes details. After the Scott Peterson trial was over, the adopted sister Ann Bird's book was quite revealing and had several unknown details about Scott and his mother Jackie. (Boy, that Jackie Peterson was a piece of work, wasn't she?)

For me, the Mystery of Frank is THE greatest frustration in this entire case. That a longtime member of OP's household is virtually invisible during the trial is simply stunning.

Either he really knows nothing or he knows everything.

At the very least, it seems he would have been subpoenaed to testify about the evening BEFORE Reeva and OP supposedly went upstairs to bed. Surely he could shed light on some aspects of the "climate" of the house in those few hours, words spoken, moods observed, actions noted! As well as what he heard/observed as he stood out in the street with security - BEFORE the Standers arrived!

The man knows something. Chances are a whole lot of something.

He's one of the biggest keys to this case and that he is missing says his testimony would be damning.

I have little to no doubt that OP got to him good, i.e. physical threats and/or money.

Poor Frank.

Deaf. Dumb. Blind.

If my boss had just murdered someone I'd probably be totally terrified, too.

Perhaps this is exactly why Nel did not call him to the stand.

We all know exactly what OP is capable of.

Nel fears for Frank's life seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Interested Bystander]

It probably is a duty of care thing as it is her court and responsibility as Judge of proceedings from what I saw. Can anyone outline this the SOP of the courts in SA

I think she did almost everything "by the book" but this was a show case and to be expected. She did apparently slip up once or twice according to the Legal Round Table. Sadly, I doubt whether most courts in SA function to this standard whatever the SOP is.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

This may be an incredibly silly question, but who's the big guy who's next to Nel the entire time watching him adoringly?!

EDIT: Van Aardt. Was a silly question!

We're all watching Nel adoringly! LOL

 

[Greater Than]

I found this article about OP visiting Mandela where his family were "annoyed and disappointed" because he wasn't allowed to take his gun with him!

http://africasacountry.com/oscar-pi...-to-visit-ailing-mandela-but-without-his-gun/

The article was posted on 26th September 2013 so was only a few months after Reeva's death and his family think OP should have been allowed
to take a lethal weapon into the home of probably the most loved man on the planet? What I'm getting from that article is the implication that OP must have still had access to guns if they had to broach the subject with Mandela's security in the first place. If his family were so afraid of
the 'crazy crime' in Jo'burg then one of them could have taken along a gun and sat in the car until OP's visit was over - or used the armed security guard whose apparently stood outside OP's bedroom at Uncle Arnold's every night since Reeva was murdered.

RSBM

That article merely says "a Pistorius spokesperson" without identifying who it is, so I'm not sure it's entirely accurate, but if it is, this is another example of them flip-flopping their primary reason for owning guns.

Shortly after OP's bail hearing, his father said the following to a UK newspaper:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-blames-South-Africas-gun-culture-on-ANC.html

Henke Pistorius said he and other members of his family owned guns because they could not rely on the police to protect them against criminals.

He laid the blame for South Africa's violent crime rates, which are among the highest in the world with 15,000 people murdered last year, on the ANC government.

[...]

His comments came after it was revealed that Mr Pistorius' father, grandfather and uncles own 55 guns between them.

[...]

"Some of the guns are for hunting and some are for protection, the hand guns. It speaks to the ANC government, look at white crime levels, why protection is so poor in this country, it's an aspect of our society," he said.

"You can't rely on the police, not because they are inefficient always but because crime is so rife."

OP and the rest of his family went into full damage-control mode and in response, released this official media statement:

http://oscarpistorius.com/pistorius...rom-henke-pistorius-comments-in-uk-newspaper/

PISTORIUS FAMILY DISTANCES ITSELF FROM HENKE PISTORIUS’S COMMENTS IN UK NEWSPAPER

South Africa, Pretoria, March 4 2013

Oscar Pistorius’s family is deeply concerned about the comments made by Oscar’s father, Henke Pistorius, to UK newspaper the Telegraph about the family using its weapons to defend themselves against crime in South Africa, and especially about his comments that the ANC government is not willing to protect white South Africans.

“The Pistorius family own weapons purely for sport and hunting purposes,” said Arnold Pistorius, family spokesperson.

Oscar and the rest of the Pistorius family distances itself from the comments. “Henke’s interview with the newspaper was unapproved by our media liaison team” Pistorius said. “The comments doesn’t represent the views of Oscar or the rest of the Pistorius family.”

Every time OP's fear of crime and his need for self-protection was brought up during the trial, I couldn't help but think back to this media statement and the insistence that he owns guns "purely" for pleasure, not for protection, even though he explicitly stated in his bail application, "I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night."

It is clear that when it is to his benefit, he owns guns because of the high crime rate in South Africa, and when it is to his detriment, his guns are exclusively for sporting and hunting purposes. He can't have it both ways. Actually, could have had it both ways, but he was so worried about the repercussions of his father's comments that he distanced himself entirely from them by disputing them all.

Now, I'm not proposing that crime is not prevalent in South Africa and is not something to be concerned about, but this article puts things into an interesting perspective:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ama...h-africa-media-murdering-image_b_2775257.html

Anyone who has been following the Oscar Pistorius bail hearing over the last few days could be forgiven for thinking that South Africa is the new Wild West, full of gun-toting, trigger-happy outlaws.

[...]

A typical example of what South Africans put up with day-to-day? No, of course not.

[...]

On any level this is heartbreaking but what we need to leave behind is the belief, created by a bloodthirsty media on the scent of an emotive story, that this all happened against the backdrop of the most violent country in the world. Quite simply it isn't.

The United States has the highest rate of private gun ownership globally, while South Africa ranks only 50th. When it comes to gun-related homicide, South Africa comes in at no.12 with many South American and Caribbean countries such as Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras, Belize and El Salvador significantly ranking way above it.

Holiday destinations such as Jamaica are much higher up the list. Even the location for the 2016 Olympics and the next FIFA World Cup, Brazil, a country comparable in many ways for the gap between rich and poor in society, is above South Africa in this table.

[...]

In the midst of this media frenzy of blame centred on the 'paranoid' South African society and its unhealthy love of guns, the simple fact is that for many people in South Africa this isn't their reality.

I personally do not believe OP was all that fearful of crime in SA. I do not believe he was a victim of the unreported crimes he claims to have been a victim of. And I do not believe protection is very high on his list of reasons for owning his guns.

What I DO believe is that he thinks owning guns makes him "cool." I believe he feels powerful and superior carrying around a loaded weapon. And I believe his frequent target practice on the gun range is more about the hobby than it is about learning to efficiently protect himself from a real-life threat.

MOO

 

[Lux et Veritas]

His father [Henke] refused to make a statement in the case and thus did not confirm or deny that the [.38] ammunition belonged to him.
http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/...rial-what-to-expect-in-the-closing-arguments/

It just really struck me what a totally useless chickensh#t OP’s father is.

Like his son, he doesn’t have the cojones to tell the truth - or anything, for that matter. He will not protect OP and he will not rat him out. Henke should have been hauled before the court to declare if that ammo was indeed his or not. How friggin hard is that? Yes or No. His simple answer would have shed serious light on at least one aspect of this case.

On a side note, this is one of the most baffling, frustrating and yes, disturbing parts about the SA justice system. Why is everyone SO unwilling to force (critical) witnesses to the stand? An innocent woman is DEAD - witnesses should not have the option to simply bow out.

 

[Greater Than]

From link above: "Also, the defence is likely to rely on the testimony of pathologist Dr Jan Botha and anaesthetist Professor Aina Lundgren, who said it was impossible to say how long before her death Steenkamp ate, to counter the state’s evidence on this aspect."

But iirc Prof. Lundgren admitted she didn't know how much food remained in RS's stomach at time of death. When Nel told her the amount, Lundgren testified that if OP's story of their eating at 7 p.m. and not later were true, Reeva must have consumed at least 2 liters of food at dinner.

My limited and perhaps faulty understanding of SA closings is that both sides submit a lengthy written version first, then present an abridged version before the judge, completed in only a day or two. The judge and her two assessors then take as long as they need, usually at least several weeks or longer, to study the voluminous reports and come to a just decision. This system puts the evidence first and negates OP's star power/courtroom theatrics imo.

BIB - Prof. Lundgren also admitted she was testifying outside of her field of expertise.

"I'm a clinician - I deal with live patients."

"I'm not aware of post-mortem - it's outside of my field."

 

[Greater Than]

His father [Henke] refused to make a statement in the case and thus did not confirm or deny that the [.38] ammunition belonged to him.
http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/...rial-what-to-expect-in-the-closing-arguments/

It just really struck me what a totally useless chickensh#t OP’s father is.

Like his son, he doesn’t have the cojones to tell the truth - or anything, for that matter. He will not protect OP and he will not rat him out. Henke should have been hauled before the court to declare if that ammo was indeed his or not. How friggin hard is that? Yes or No. His simple answer would have shed serious light on at least one aspect of this case.

On a side note, this is one of the most baffling, frustrating and yes, disturbing parts about the SA justice system. Why is everyone SO unwilling to force (critical) witnesses to the stand? An innocent woman is DEAD - witnesses should not have the option to simply bow out.

I don't think his father was lying. I think this is just another example of OP not taking responsibility. Ren testified and provided a receipt showing that OP had placed an order to purchase six more weapons from him, including a .38 caliber pistol - the kind that uses the exact unlicensed ammo OP was in possession of.

The ammo was his, not his father's.

MOO

 

[Cherwell]

I am relistening to OP's cross examination by Nel. Fascinating to go back, now that all information we are going to get from the trial is in.

This struck me:

Nel: "There were only two people in the house that night, is that correct?"

OP: "Yes, Milady, that is correct."

Knowing now that "Frank the Houseman" was in a bedroom located adjacent to the kitchen - not in a separate building or anything like that - how could Nel have allowed this answer to stand? Did everybody involved in the case just agree to pretend Frank was not there? I just don't understand this at all. Even if Frank would not testify, why pretend he was not even there? Or, perhaps better to ask, why would Nel phrase a question in this particular manner?

They didn't totally pretend Frank wasn't there, because he did appear on the State's witness list. (I wonder if he was whisked away and cannot be found?!)

The situation with witnesses is not as straightforward as forcing them to appear by subpoena. If counsel (for either side) cannot feel confident that a witness will testify in their favour, then it's safer not to call them at all. No one wants to risk calling an unpredictable witness who may destroy their argument.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

BIB - Prof. Lundgren also admitted she was testifying outside of her field of expertise.

"I'm a clinician - I deal with live patients."

"I'm not aware of post-mortem - it's outside of my field."

Amazing how many NON-expert "experts" Defense presented. (hi, Dixon!) LOL

Well, I suppose Roux took what he could get, considering his client ... and his Fairytale.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar partying with buddies in Mozambique December 2013.

Honestly, does this look like a "heartbroken", "depressed", "suicidal" man?!!

(Perhaps it's the SMILE that gives him away?)

I also seriously question the morals and character of his friends, too.

 

[Val1]

Oscar partying with buddies in Mozambique December 2013.

Honestly, does this look like a "heartbroken", "depressed", "suicidal" man?!!

(Perhaps it's the SMILE that gives him away?)

I also seriously question the morals and character of his friends, too.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnU-oGvIQAEsAIw.jpg

If I had a sunburn like that, I doubt I'd be smiling... let alone the fact that he'd not only admitted he killed his "beloved" RS but was about to go to trial to decide whether it was justified or not....

 

[foxbluff]

Along with the "cover up," the switching of the sides of the bed is another area I wish was explored further.

All evidence points to him sleeping on his usual side - the right (closest to the balcony). The shirt he took off before going to bed, his iPad, his legs...all on the right side. Her bag and flip flops were on the left. The only thing out of place is the gun holster found on the nightstand on the left side, but that doesn't prove that's the side he slept on. At best, it suggests that's the side he retrieved his gun from.

And when I say "slept," I mean the sides they were laying on in bed when the argument originated, because I don't believe they ever went to sleep that night. The propped up pillow on the right side further proves that theory.

Well stated !! I revisited the Judge's decision to grant bail... given the things the Judge was left questioning, it's beyond me why he let him go. Imho, OP's version of events alone should have been enough to convince Judge that he was a flight risk!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2013/feb/22/oscar-pistorius-bail-decision-live-coverage

[Quote from link]
Magistrate Desmond Nair has granted bail to Oscar Pistorius. These were the judge’s main reasons:
• He did not think Pistorius was a flight risk.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown that Pistorius had a propensity for violence.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown there would be public outrage if he were released on bail.
• He did not think the prosecution’s case was so strong that Pistorius’s only reasonable reaction were he released would be to flee.
But he also pointed out holes in Pistorius’s story which may prove important when the case comes to trial:
• Why did he not ascertain Steenkamp's wherabouts?
• Why did he not verify who was in the toilet?
• Why did Steenkamp not scream back from the toilet?
• Why did the deceased and the accused not escape through the bedroom door rather than venture into the toilet?
• Why would the accused venture into danger knowing the intruder was in the toilet, leaving himself open to attack? He returned to the dangerous area. What if the intruder was waiting for him?
And he said he had difficulty with the defence's version of why the accused slept on the other side of the bed from usual that night.

 

[foxbluff]

Oscar partying with buddies in Mozambique December 2013.

Honestly, does this look like a "heartbroken", "depressed", "suicidal" man?!!

(Perhaps it's the SMILE that gives him away?)

I also seriously question the morals and character of his friends, too.

OMG... when that photo link first opened, I thought OP was naked!!!!! LOL Am I alone in having thought that??

Lux, did you white-out the faces of his friends or were they already whited-out?

Hmm... I'm guessing here that the "pbs" stands for something other than Public Broadcasting station...??

 

[eimajjjj]

I think she did almost everything "by the book" but this was a show case and to be expected. She did apparently slip up once or twice according to the Legal Round Table. Sadly, I doubt whether most courts in SA function to this standard whatever the SOP is.

What were the slip-ups out of interest?