# General Business Category > General Business Forum >  Oscar - SA's OJ case

## sterne.law@gmail.com



----------

newBix (03-Mar-14)

----------


## adrianh

hmmm....South African soap opera of the century...

----------


## IanF

One good reason to drop DSTV you won't be tempted to even think of watching the trial!

----------


## adrianh

Trial - media farce more like it...

----------


## Marq

Current odds
Guilty 4:7 Not Guilty 2:5
The only winners: Bookmakers

----------

KristiKat (08-Mar-14)

----------


## adrianh

Oscar should get Julias Malema to represent him: "I deed not steel from you poor peopol...neva...it is e-political plot against me..."

"I deed not mean to put 4 dumdum bulllets inna de ghost dat was taking de peepee inna de bathroom, it issa de plot to sweep-a my legs from unda me!"

----------

KristiKat (08-Mar-14)

----------


## IanF

Ok I listened briefly to the audio stream I lasted 6 minutes while eating lunch. It is very tedious.

----------


## newBix

> Ok I listened briefly to the audio stream I lasted 6 minutes while eating lunch. It is very tedious.


this is much better than watching golf. Golf makes me sleepy in about 10min they did it in 6min LOL

----------

KristiKat (08-Mar-14)

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

The defense has started with venom. 
Another seal clubbing!

----------

newBix (03-Mar-14)

----------


## newBix

> The defense has started with venom. 
> Another seal clubbing!


I am watching this myself and I wonder who is on trial right now I am thinking the witness...? 
I mean shame man she is doing her best but I think her statement might be to long?

----------


## Dave A

> I am watching this myself and I wonder who is on trial right now I am thinking the witness...?


Welcome to the wonderful world of being a witness.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

To be fair, she handled well.
The interpreter on the other hand must be from the same company as the Mandela funeral interpreter.

----------


## desA

Why is the witness attacked in this way? Do these people have no shame? Surely the judge should set some guidelines?

I mean, why on earth would someone willingly put themselves through all that - in the name of justice?

----------


## newBix

I think they want to discredit the witnesses I also think that her statement might be too long. It is hard to remember every word very sentence. My lawyer always said "keep it short keep it simple" I will add to this. Don't use big words...

----------


## Dave A

> Why is the witness attacked in this way? Do these people have no shame? Surely the judge should set some guidelines?


It being a murder trial, I doubt the judge (or anyone else for that matter) will want any stone left unturned.

The stakes are high.

----------


## newBix

> It being a murder trial, I doubt the judge (or anyone else for that matter) will want any stone left unturned.
> 
> The stakes are high.


I think this will teach South Africans not to get involved or become a witness. I mean he asked the same question over and over again just the get the witness to say something else so that he could use it against her. I mean he even used the translator against the witness what type of creep does that? He tried to twist every word around he got corrected at some stage where it was pointed out he actually twisted the facts. Yes he apologised but in the end he only apologised because of the objection made otherwise he would just have carried on. 

Oscar's legal team will play the witnesses against each other like he did today.

----------


## Mike C

I also thought that she handled her testimony very well (the parts that I heard).  I might have missed something, but after her statement I was wanting to ask why she didn't phone the police after the (incorrect) security firm hung up on her husband.  It was, after all, such a traumatic event that she even feared someone was shot ...

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

On a similar vein, she claims to have been traumatised and it was dramatic, yet she went to sleep after hearing the screaming and 4 shots.
Going to sleep, so easily, seems to fly in the face of her trauma and how impactful the events were.

----------


## newBix

> I also thought that she handled her testimony very well (the parts that I heard).  I might have missed something, but after her statement I was wanting to ask why she didn't phone the police after the (incorrect) security firm hung up on her husband.  It was, after all, such a traumatic event that she even feared someone was shot ...


phoning the police will not help because they didn't know at that stage what house was "robbed" or who was in trouble. And you can't expect the police to go from door to door. That said I am more interested in this. Normally when you have a security system in your house it comes with panic buttons. So why not press the button set of the alarm? If he really was "that fearful" of an attacker... Then surely his alarm system had to have panic buttons I mean everyone that owns a alarm system and is with a security company knows where the panic buttons are. it is the first thing they show you.

----------


## newBix

> On a similar vein, she claims to have been traumatised and it was dramatic, yet she went to sleep after hearing the screaming and 4 shots.
> Going to sleep, so easily, seems to fly in the face of her trauma and how impactful the events were.


She did say she was grieving "sorrowful" because someone close to her lost a child. Now it can be that she was simply exhausted before this event happened. It is possible. 

but the seal clubbing will continue today. I really don't want to be her.

----------


## HR Solutions

> yet she went to sleep after hearing the screaming and 4 shots.
>  Going to sleep, so easily, seems to fly in the face of her trauma and how impactful the events were.


Yes this does seem a bit weird.  We do live in SA and I have also heard shots fired at night, sometimes you cannot figure out how far away it was, and you do go back to sleep, because of our environment, But if you think about it, if you heard "screaming" first, then gunshots, I would certainly go out and investigate !! - I would definitely phone security / and or the police, because if you hear these two together there is certainly something wrong.

----------

Mike C (04-Mar-14), pmbguy (04-Mar-14)

----------


## pmbguy

Just to touch on the panic button thing. If I was armed and I notice an intruder in the house who has not seen me yet I would not push the panic button because I would lose the element of surprise, I want the initiative. Either letting them come to me whilst I remain hidden (Ambush) or seek them out actively-carefully, perhaps a do a Chuck Norris. But I recon at some point I would still push the panic button, even just to get the security and cops to the right house. 

The defence’s main strategy must surely be that his condition caused him to have an abnormal fear of intruders – a disability induced obsession even. This is totally plausible. From very young he has had this fear etc, family/friends testify to that ect. 

I think he is a volatile violent man, who after a protracted argument took out his pistol cocked it and said “fuct this!”




@Oscar -  If you Really thought she was an intruder...then I wish you the best of luck boet.

----------

adrianh (04-Mar-14)

----------


## newBix

Thing is if you are that fearful why do you want to do a Chuck Norris?

----------


## pmbguy

> Thing is if you are that fearful why do you want to do a Chuck Norris?


That paragraph pertains to how I would respond when armed. Me not Oscar. I would potentially, given ideal conditions, open a can of Chuck. Technically you can’t actually do a Chuck though, because let’s be honest Chuck Norris can’t be copied. Man cannot impersonate a God.

----------


## pmbguy

Fear may actually make some people do a Chuck Norris, given the right situation. Fear does not automatically mean one remains passive.

----------


## newBix

> Fear may actually make some people do a Chuck Norris, given the right situation. Fear does not automatically mean one remains passive.


Ok you think there is someone in your house you wip out your big ass gun. Now you walk bravely to where this criminal is steeling your toilet seat. You pull the trigger hitting who ever behind the door. Now if it was me behind the door being shot at I would scream surrender I would piss myself I would take dump in my undies. 

Here is what is said. The first shot was followed by a pause! Now don't you think that the person that was hit by a bullet would have screamed or something in that few seconds? I mean if you ever hurt yourself you know that "OOOOOOOOoouch!!!!" is instantaneous

Here is my biggest question, why was the door locked? We know it was locked because he had to break the door down. There is just 2 people in the house they are sleeping together and she locks the door when using the toilet? 

Lastly that lawyer was not nice with the first witness he had ZERO compassion...

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Some people do lock the door.
Advocate has a job to do, and he has his back against the wall.

----------

newBix (04-Mar-14)

----------


## desA

Looks like little to do with justice, & a lot to do with theatre... so incredibly sad.

In Asia, Pistorius would be dead by now, in all likelihood.

----------

adrianh (04-Mar-14), newBix (04-Mar-14)

----------


## newBix

> Some people do lock the door.
> Advocate has a job to do, and he has his back against the wall.


he pointed out today that it seems as the statements was copies of each other. if i was this dude i would see who was responsible for taking the statements then i would group the statements and look for similarities. 

then i will take the similarities represent them to the court and argue that something must have taken place for those similarities to occur then ask the Judge to make a ruling if they will still accept the statements or reject them.

if there is enough similarities then they have to ask why right?

----------


## Dave A

Irresistible!

----------


## Alice Rain

I'm waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start coming along, thanx much appreciated!

----------


## Alice Rain

I wish I could read what the captions say, but don't have time to figure it out!  Yes, definitely SA's OJ case!

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Regarding similiar statements -
The very nature of cross-examination is to test if a witness is telling the truth.
Therefore, taking 3 statements, that are the same, and saying "hey, it must be true" would make no sense.
Once all 3 witnesses, for eg, have all said teh same thing, then the chances are, that it must be true.
What defence counsel is hinting at, is that the witnesses have started telling a story, that they believe happened, and not  what they actually recall or heard. (not uncommon amongst witnesses even without media coverage).
It should also be considered, that the prosecution (witnesses advocate as such) could stand up and say the question has been asked or answered and such forth, as he did on a few occassions.

----------


## desA

Now, how would the game change if SA law were to have the basic premise : *Guilty, until proven innocent*?

*Innocent, until proven guilty* - seems to allow all types of distortions & theatrics. With the first - generally French-based, as I understand - the perp/suspect has less opportunity to disrupt the search for truth. In SE Asia, I've seen the 'Guilty, until proven innocent' logic at work. It works well.

----------


## newBix

> Regarding similiar statements -
> The very nature of cross-examination is to test if a witness is telling the truth.
> Therefore, taking 3 statements, that are the same, and saying "hey, it must be true" would make no sense.
> Once all 3 witnesses, for eg, have all said teh same thing, then the chances are, that it must be true.
> What defence counsel is hinting at, is that the witnesses have started telling a story, that they believe happened, and not  what they actually recall or heard. (not uncommon amongst witnesses even without media coverage).
> It should also be considered, that the prosecution (witnesses advocate as such) could stand up and say the question has been asked or answered and such forth, as he did on a few occassions.


i am not a Guru, i don't know what is possible and what wasn't possible. Here is my take 10 people go out and take statements right. Now they hear possibly the same thing over and over again from a lot of people. Now I am not saying it did happen, but what if one of those people that took the statements hinted a witness and said "yes we know the clock dinged 3 times" In the mean time the witness was thinking "the clock dinged few times" no specific number but because the person taking the statement said " the clock dinged 3 times" they simply agree and said "YES" the clock dinged 3 times. 

See yesterday they hinted that "statements looked the same" not because they are telling the same story but because some bits might have been copied from one statement to the next. If that is indeed true then surely that will create some doubt. and really that is all that they need at this stage.

----------


## newBix

> Now, how would the game change if SA law were to have the basic premise : *Guilty, until proven innocent*?
> 
> *Innocent, until proven guilty* - seems to allow all types of distortions & theatrics. With the first - generally French-based, as I understand - the perp/suspect has less opportunity to disrupt the search for truth. In SE Asia, I've seen the 'Guilty, until proven innocent' logic at work. It works well.


Ok you drive around and some random jerk accuse you of trying to kill him. You get arrested put in jail until your hearing. Because they assume you are guilty your bail application is more than what you can earn because in there minds "yes we are dealing with a horrible person". 

Then you remain in prison “losing your job getting blacklisted losing your house” and by the time they get you in court it doesn’t matter because “tiny the local prison mascot” had his way with you and now you have HIV along with legal debt along with losing your job your home and possibly your livelihood. 

innocent till proven guilty tanks...

----------


## desA

> innocent till proven guilty tanks...


That's because SA's mindsets & operational psychology have built themselves around the principle of 'Innocent, until proven guilty'.

In Asia, the local police & arbitrators deal with things on the ground. The general EQ (emotional quotient) of the surrounding populace seems to be far higher than SA. Your proposed scenarios can exist, but are extremely rare.

The tribal law in SA probably solves more problems than they are given credit for. I'd wonder what the prevailing world view is in the tribal world view, in SA?

----------


## pmbguy

> Ok you think there is someone in your house you wip out your big ass gun. Now you walk bravely to where this criminal is steeling your toilet seat. You pull the trigger hitting who ever behind the door. Now if it was me behind the door being shot at I would scream surrender I would piss myself I would take dump in my undies. 
> 
> Here is what is said. The first shot was followed by a pause! Now don't you think that the person that was hit by a bullet would have screamed or something in that few seconds? I mean if you ever hurt yourself you know that "OOOOOOOOoouch!!!!" is instantaneous
> 
> Here is my biggest question, why was the door locked? We know it was locked because he had to break the door down. There is just 2 people in the house they are sleeping together and she locks the door when using the toilet?


It depends on the order of the bullet impacts. Many fatal gunshot wounds do not allow for the victim to shout ouch!.  

The locked door does seem to show she was afraid, trying to keep him away, but some people do lock the bathroom door. 

If I remember correctly he said that he shouted hey intruder! (whatever) and there was no response, perhaps she got frightened by the shouting, did not recognize him, and quickly locked the door(Defence argues).

----------


## IanF

I listened in the car today and could not manage more than 5 minutes, I have a short attention span. The clarifications sought are tedious but that is the job of the lawyers and obviously a lot of mental stamina is needed.

----------


## Mike C

:Offtopic: 

Ok so it may be a bit off-topic.  But what do the judges do during a break like today.  Do they have other legal matters to which they need to give their attention?  Do they deal with reviewing what they have heard?  Or do they go shopping?

Just curious.

----------


## Hermes14

> It depends on the order of the bullet impacts. Many fatal gunshot wounds do not allow for the victim to shout “ouch!”.  
> 
> The locked door does seem to show she was afraid, trying to keep him away, but some people do lock the bathroom door. 
> 
> If I remember correctly he said that he shouted “hey intruder!” (whatever) and there was no response, perhaps she got frightened by the shouting, did not recognize him, and quickly locked the door(Defence argues).


When you have been shot your body goes into shock & you only start feeling the pain after your body has started absorbing the shock.
The last thing you thinks about is shouting.

----------

pmbguy (07-Mar-14)

----------


## desA

Scenario:

1.  Argument;
2.  OP threatens RS with gun;
3.  Reeva screams in fear;
4.  Reeva runs to bathroom, locks door, tries phoning out for help;
5.  Oscar screams for help to show possible robbery-in-progress;
6.  Shoots Reeva through door, in anger.

Premeditated, through & through. Only the devilish lies & attack by his paid liar & bully (attorney), may stave off the inevitable. This man is a cold-blooded murderer.

Was it Voltaire who said : Kill the lawyers first?   :Wink:

----------


## newBix

To be fair to both sides they do have a job to do and must do it to the best of their abilities. If it means pulling a witness a part like angry pack of wild dogs then that is what they will do. To be fair to "OS" he is fighting for his life. to be fair to "RS" she lost her life so government must now act and find the truth. 

The court is in the process to figure out what statements are valid and it a nasty process...

----------


## Dave A

> Was it Voltaire who said : Kill the lawyers first?


Nope. It was a product of that old bard, William Shakespeare.

Cade: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny, the three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops, and I will make it felony to drink small beer; all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass; and when I am king, as king I will be, there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Cade: Nay, that I mean to do. 

William Shakespeare, Henry the Sixth, Part II, IV, ii (1623), suggesting that all lawyers would have to die in order to impose his will as king.

----------

desA (06-Mar-14)

----------


## desA

Thank you, Dave.

A lovely quotation indeed.

----------


## IanF

Cade sounds like our politicians they read Shakespeare
 :EEK!:

----------


## newBix

If you do a Google you will find a story like this one. Man Thought Daughter was Intruder




> BROWNSVILLE - A father claims he mistook his daughter for an intruder, when he shot her Thursday night.
> 
> Brownsville police are investigating the shooting at the Conquistador Apartments on Billy Mitchell Boulevard. Investigators said the 27-year old woman was sneaking in through an unlocked window at the apartments.
> 
> Her father told police he thought she was intruder and fired a small caliber handgun. The woman was hit with fragments of the bullet in her eye.
> 
> Police are talking to the district attorney's office to determine if any criminal charges will be filed.


Now there is a video clip and if your internet isn’t a bowl of old dog poo and can actually stream it you may find the story interesting. 

After watching what was said in court on the OS case, I cannot help but to think “look this dude had every reason to be scared. I mean we “all of us” have a fear of a murderer coming to rob and kill us. If we didn’t we wouldn’t have security systems locked doors. and our homes wouldn't resemble a prison.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Pursuant to Johan Stipps testimony public sentiment has started to swing towards Oscar.

----------


## newBix

> Pursuant to Johan Stipps testimony public sentiment has started to swing towards Oscar.


I don’t know... Everyone is saying she screamed. NOW for that to be true was she really behind the door? Was she sitting or standing?

----------


## Hermes14

> Pursuant to Johan Stipps testimony public sentiment has started to swing towards Oscar.


Personally I don't feel it is safe to make a judgment yet.
We need to hear all the other evidence first before we weigh up the facts

The fact that Oscar had previously negligently fired a fire arm in public & got someone else to take the blame for him is going to count against him.
One question I would like to hear Oscar answer is what lead him to believe that there was a burglar in the bathroom?

----------


## HR Solutions

> BROWNSVILLE - A father claims he mistook his daughter for an intruder, when he shot her Thursday night.
> 
>  Brownsville police are investigating the shooting at the Conquistador Apartments on Billy Mitchell Boulevard. Investigators said the 27-year old woman was sneaking in through an unlocked window at the apartments.
> 
>  Her father told police he thought she was intruder and fired a small caliber handgun. The woman was hit with fragments of the bullet in her eye.
> 
>  Police are talking to the district attorney's office to determine if any criminal charges will be filed.


To me there is one BIG difference - this guy SAW someone climbing thro a window, which is not a natural thing to be doing at that time of the night.  With Oscar he shot thro a LOCKED door, which just happened to be a bathroom on the first floor !! There is every chance that your girlfriend is using the toilet, than climbing in or out of a window !

I am a gun owner - If I hear a noise at night, which has happened a few times - the first thing I do is make sure I know where my complete family is !

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

In respect to public sentiment turning, I did not say Stipps testimony has exonerated Oscar, but based on twitter and the social media (a barometer of public opinion), people have started exploring the possibility that just maybe it was an accident.

----------


## Hermes14

Sterne I wasn’t trying to batter you.
I was just expressing my p.o.v. 
Unfortunately I missed the first three days of the trial but yesterday I was able to watch most of the trial.
Johan Stipps statement was a very emotional statement & if I took myself & put myself in the shoes of a person that has not been trained in court procedures, I will also be allowing my emotions to be controlling my assumptions.

From just hearing Stipps testimony, yes it does sound like it could have been an accident.
If Oscar was the owner of a firearm, did he have a competency certificate for that firearm?

----------


## pmbguy

> Personally I don't feel it is safe to make a judgment yet.
> We need to hear all the other evidence first before we weigh up the facts
> 
> The fact that Oscar had previously negligently fired a fire arm in public & got someone else to take the blame for him is going to count against him.
> One question I would like to hear Oscar answer is what lead him to believe that there was a burglar in the bathroom?


The public shooting thing is very bad, in hind sight he actually shot himself in the foot that day, perhaps his head.  

Regarding the bed/burglar problem, I would say the defence would argue that the blankets/pillows made it look like she was in the bed. Very plausible, this happens all the time. 

Key evidence here would be the bedroom photos and how much light comes through the curtains, were they open, which lights were on/off, size/nature of blankets and pillows.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Yes, he does have a competency certificate.
he also has a licence as a gun collector.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

The gun dischareg in the restaurant -
It would be really stupid to purposefully fire a shot. By all accounts it sounds like a genuine accident. That does not remove the fact that the gun owner was irresponsible (and was supposed to remove the bullet form the breech) when he handed it over. 9But then we shoudl arrest a large proportion of our police force and military)
Shifting the blame, whilst morally incorrect, is understandable and explainable in that as a celebrity it would draw far more attention than a civilian.
Firing out the car -
Open stretch of road, he is not the first nor the last man to do that.

I think the prosecution has no real interest in pressing these charges, what they do do is allow a form of character evidence to be led, which would not ordinarily have been permissable. It paints a picture of a reckless cowboy - good for the homicide case.

----------


## pmbguy

I agree that the restaurant shooting is not that serious in itself, it will probably only be a “shooting himself in the foot” thing, but these incidents add to the idea that he is a mad gun ho bugger. 

I guess the defence will say, yes he owns x and y and yes he is what we may deem a gun fanatic, at times very irresponsible. But put yourself in his shoes for a minute and you will realise that this behaviour, gun fanaticism, unhealthy fear of intruders, is borne out of his birth. His actions that night were out of fear not anger.

----------


## pmbguy

His disability means that the defence can turn the “gun mad cowboy” image not really to their advantage as such, but rather successfully channel this image into their argument. So in some respect attacks on his character won’t be as harmful as it may be in other cases (Given that the defence is successful at painting the disability-fear of intruders argument).

----------


## newBix

Today the X painted a picture of a irresponsible person. a man that gets really angry i wonder how the hell did he get a firearm to begin with. I get is SA is a dangerous place but giving him a gun does that make SA less dangerous or more?   

The picture i got is here is a man that thinks he can do what he wants when he wants and how he wants above the law comes to mind. twice now he illustrated a very irresponsible and anger driven personality.

But what pisses me off is the "OS" representation stated I DIDNT WANT TO DO THIS BUT I WILL how the hell is this not a fret from him to the witness?

He basically said ok you showed your face stated that you are a  x-girlfriend but i got e-mails showing that you are not and NOW I am going to humiliate you with this evidence am i missing something?

----------


## Hermes14

Yes the owner was very negligent for handing over a loaded firearm.
I am assuming a person with a gun collector’s license is fairly knowledgeable about firearms & firearm law.
Anyone who has had firearm training should know that when you receive a firearm from someone else & you don’t know the state of the firearm you should always treat it as loaded.



> Shifting the blame, whilst morally incorrect, is understandable and explainable in that as a celebrity it would draw far more attention than a civilian.
> Firing out the car


If his friends had not taken the blame & Oscar was forced to face the consequences would Reeva be alive today?




> pmbguy:- Regarding the bed/burglar problem, I would say the defense would argue that the blankets/pillows made it look like she was in the bed. Very plausible, this happens all the time.


That is a good point & difficult to rule out. 

I’m not sure how much weight Samantha’s statement will hold in the final decision. 
Regarding the shout for help whether it is a man or woman. Adv Roux  could argue that the incident at the Vaal where Oscar shouted out of anger after the police stopped them & the cry for help the neighbours heard on the night of the incident when Reeva was shot. Would not be the same because he would have been in two totally states of mind.




> I think the prosecution has no real interest in pressing these charges, what they do is allow a form of character evidence to be led, which would not ordinarily have been permissible.


I can almost agree with you but I can’t seem to work out what Adv Nel is planning. 
It does look like they are aiming for a charge of negligence

----------


## Hermes14

> But what pisses me off is the "OS" representation stated “I DIDNT WANT TO DO THIS BUT I WILL“ how the hell is this not a fret from him to the witness?
> 
> He basically said ok you showed your face stated that you are a  x-girlfriend but i got e-mails showing that you are not and NOW I am going to humiliate you with this “evidence” am i missing something?


SM is a state witness & it is therefore necessary for OS representation to try & prove that the evidence she is giving is inadmissible.

----------

newBix (07-Mar-14)

----------


## HR Solutions

I think that the firing of a shot at a restaurant and the firing of a weapon out of the car is very important.  I think that it shows that we are dealing with a VERY VERY irresponsible person, that on firing the weapon irresponsibly a third time (that we know) - he killed someone !! And his life was NOT in immediate danger as we all know your life has to be in immediate danger to fire a weapon and he shot thro a door !!

He has got a collectors firearm licence, he has done a competency test and passed !! WTF - now act responsibly and if you don't then you must face the music !! And if he gets away with this, what will be the fourth irresponsible thing that he does ????

----------


## pmbguy

Unless evidence is produced that definitively proves that his version of events (Thinking of the bullet angles, standing etc) is almost impossible, the possibility of it being judged as an accident is substantial. There is certainly enough plausibility in his story (Currently, given future evidence) that Nell might go for a lesser charge – as Hermes pointed out.

While we on the subject I will never support a jury type system, unless you test for intelligence first. This for me is a much greater concern than the “guilty to be proven innocent” visa versa issue. I think that anybody, including Oscar, will get a fairer shake under our law. One thing that is a positive for the Jury system is that they (the jury) don’t suffer from the customisation-of-guilty-people-sitting-in-front-of-them effect. I will still choose a few smart judges though if I was innocent, if guilty I would choose the jury.  

Concerning the evil prosecutor. When a person’s entire life hangs in the balance I think the means justify the ends when it comes to hard questioning. I do admit that it does feel wrong, but I can assure you its natural-normal even prudent. 


Can anybody hazard a guess at this point as to how long the trial will last?

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

5 days, 10 witnesses.
The state has over 100 witnesses ...you do the maths.
And at probably R100 000 a day for defense team...do that maths as well.

----------


## pmbguy

.Wow! at 50 days and your approximated rate being R100 000 a day, that amounts to R5mil!!. 5mil for Oscar might not be an inheritance killer. I dont know his net worth, which should be substantial (such successful branded athletes dont usually have the cash drain rappers have). I heard some of his family speak and they seem well endowed - somewhat refined. I guess rather tentatively that a +5mill account may be survivable...its their golden son for goodness/F sake! 

I bet they sold “A” Umshlanga property already for retainer.

----------


## newBix

> 5 days, 10 witnesses.
> The state has over 100 witnesses ...you do the maths.
> And at probably R100 000 a day for defense team...do that maths as well.


The idea was to show that the law is the same for all... I can’t afford that per day... Who can?

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

> .Wow! at 50 days and your approximated rate being R100 000 a day, that amounts to R5mil!!. 5mil for Oscar might not be an inheritance killer. I dont know his net worth, which should be substantial (such successful branded athletes dont usually have the cash drain rappers have). I heard some of his family speak and they seem well endowed - somewhat refined. I guess rather tentatively that a +5mill account may be survivable...its their golden son for goodness/F sake! 
> 
> I bet they sold A Umshlanga property already for retainer.



Well endowed? You know that just from their tone? Would that influence scream tones?

----------


## desA

Simple solution after guilty verdict - along the lines of Chinese system.

Oscar is lead to a room with floor sloping towards central drain. Oscar faces centre of room. Bullets fired into his errant brain. Body removed. Hosepipe sprays the debris down the hole/drain & off walls.

Imagine that dispatch on live TV.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

From his bail affidavit
The immovable property in which I currently reside, at*[address redacted]*("the residential premises"). This property is valued at approximately R5 million and is encumbered by a mortgage bond in the amount of approximately R2 million.Two further immovable properties located within Weeping Willow Estates, Pretoria East, which properties have a combined value of approximately R1,6 million. Both properties are bonded to an aggregate value of approximately R1 million.A vacant stand in Langebaan, Western Cape, which has a value of approximately R1,7 million. This property is not bonded.I own movable assets comprised of household furniture and effects, motor vehicles and jewellery, which are valued in excess of R500 000,00.My friends and family reside in the RSA, although I also have friends abroad.My professional occupation currently provides me with an income of approximately R5,6 million per annum.I have cash investments in excess of R1 million at various banks within the RSA.

----------


## pmbguy

> Well endowed? You know that just from their tone? Would that influence scream tones?


\

Yes I do get the feeling from their tone that they can pay, a feeling at best. The screams are obviously more prudent evidentially. I was examining one aspect somewhat separate

----------


## Hermes14

> He killed someone !! And his life was NOT in immediate danger as we all know your life has to be in immediate danger to fire a weapon and he shot thro a door !!


I going to be quoting the law which I studied in the security industry more than 10 years ago.
Please correct me if I do make an error.
A security officer has the same rights as any civilian, the only difference is the security officer is suspected to know the law.

Lets first look at a few definitions.
Crime :- A crime is an unlawful conduct, performed with a blameworthy state of mind by criminally responsible person which is punishable by the state.

Private Defence :- Private defence is a ground of justification upon which a person can rely if he protects his or another person’s interest against an unlawful attack which has commenced or is imminent the time he protects his interest.

The defence legal team are going to try & prove that Oscar acted or thought he was acting private defence & also probably  try to prove that he was not in a blameworthy state of mind when the incident occurred.

The state are going to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oscar committed a crime & try to determine if it is Premeditated murder; murder; culpable homicide or negligence.

Regarding the use of force, the attacker must have committed or be attempting to commit a first scheduled offence.
There must be a threat.
The threat must be imminent.
The threat must be directed at yourself or a third person.
The force necessary to stop the perpetrator must be justifiable.

The best way to explain this is lets say person “A” picks up a stone & wants to throw it at person “B”.
You have reason to believe that if the stone hits “B” it will cause a serious wound to a limb or endanger his life.
From the time “A” picks up the stone to the time it leaves his hand the threat is imminent & you can shoot him. Once the stone has left his hand the threat is not imminent anymore & you can’t shoot him.

Before you can shoot a perpetrator you have to warn him by shouting “Stop or I will shoot” three times or by firing a warning shot.
If the perpetrator turns around & flees you can’t shoot him anyone more.

----------

desA (07-Mar-14), pmbguy (07-Mar-14)

----------


## newBix

I would like to see the door and the bullet holes...

----------


## Hermes14

> 5 days, 10 witnesses.
> The state has over 100 witnesses ...you do the maths.
> And at probably R100 000 a day for defense team...do that maths as well.


From what I have heard ADV Barry Roux is costing Oscar R50 000 - 00 per day in court.
I don't know how much the rest of his legal team is charging him.

----------

KristiKat (08-Mar-14)

----------


## pmbguy

Totally offf topic, however I wish to say the following:. Be it 322 or 308 or 9 mill pain spear to the intruders heart... Any questions right or wrong are answered by instinct, I will quote myself “if you mean the end of me...then I will be the instrument of the end of you!” If I feel threatened to a physical degree I will end the speculation at once and react appropriately – and bring your blood pressure down to zero.

----------


## newBix

> Totally offf topic, however I wish to say the following:. Be it 322 or 308 or 9 mill pain spear to the intruders heart... Any questions right or wrong are answered by instinct, I will quote myself “if you mean the end of me...then I will be the instrument of the end of you!” If I feel threatened to a physical degree I will end the speculation at once and react appropriately – and bring your blood pressure down to zero.


People can imagine what they will do if someone enters their home. Some think they will be able to fight their way out others say they will shoot their way out and I blame ninja movies...  

that cold steel 9mm wily of yours means nothing if they got you first. i also own a gun but it is safely locked away in a SAFE where it is suppose to be. But lets say I have to defend myself. i got pepper spray “the big bottle security personnel use” I got a crossbow that can be loaded in a few seconds. I also have a stun baton and a Tippmann TPX loaded with solids and pepper balls. 

I cannot imagine an attacker wanting to hurt me after I shot him with solid balls and pepper balls, then sprayed him with 500ml of pepper spray and then electrocuted him with 50000 Volts. And I still have the option to impale him with an arrow. 

Also I have an alarm with a panic button. So at what stage do I go and get my gun? well if all of the above failed I am dealing with terminator and I am screwed... so getting my gun would be pointless.

----------


## newBix

I guess my point is you don’t need a deadly weapon to protect yourself...











i think that will stop attacker. if not this will

----------


## pmbguy

Pop pop pop I play in the bush a bit boet and I can confidently tell you that a pop pop (teargas) pop pop (solid) pop pop will never really stop a Kalashnikov, will it?    
Remember its your house your territory. I have terriers so I know if somebody is in the yard, a pants down situation is unlikely, but possible. In a likely situation I will know where they are and have the initiative. Initiative being the operative term.

----------


## newBix

> Pop pop pop I play in the bush a bit boet and I can confidently tell you that a pop pop (teargas) pop pop (solid) pop pop will never really stop a Kalashnikov, will it?    
> Remember its your house your territory. I have terriers so I know if somebody is in the yard, a pants down situation is unlikely, but possible. In a likely situation I will know where they are and have the initiative. Initiative being the operative term.


Avtomat Kalashnikova 47 with  selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle.... Originally designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1946 it was tested it can do 100 rounds/min on fully automatic. Standard magazine capacity is 30 rounds. Unless you are "The Famous Bullet whisperer" you and your dogs will be dead in seconds. 

to put it into perspective for you

----------


## newBix

Where couple arguing? 

Witnesses state there was an argument before the shooting. But the expert says *300m* you would not hear the argument, when tested at *200m* you still will not hear the argument. But experts say you could hear it *50m* away. 

Secondly it is said that OS couldnt really see anything because it was too dark. Again the experts say if he closed the windows and curtains and whatever else he would not be able to see much for a few minutes. 

Now I dont know much about sounds and lights and all that but surely a gunshot sounds is a sound that goes beyond the "sound barrier"  can a wooden cricket bat sound the same ???

----------


## Hermes14

> Where couple arguing? 
> 
> Witnesses state there was an argument before the shooting. But the expert says *300m* you would not hear the argument, when tested at *200m* you still will not hear the argument. But experts say you could hear it *50m* away. 
> 
> Secondly it is said that OS couldnt really see anything because it was too dark. Again the experts say if he closed the windows and curtains and whatever else he would not be able to see much for a few minutes. 
> 
> Now I dont know much about sounds and lights and all that but surely a gunshot sounds is a sound that goes beyond the "sound barrier"  can a wooden cricket bat sound the same ???


That is easy to test.
At 03h17am you don't have any noise pollution(also known as white noise) & therefore sound travels quite far.
The size of a normal stand is about 50m. If I am correct 
Stipp said he was about 175m away from Oscar's house.  
Climb onto your roof tonight & see if you can determine the difference between a man or a woman approximately 3 houses away from you through a bathroom window.
The speed of sound under normal conditions is approximately 340m/s which is approximately 1115 f/s.
To break the sound barrier the bullet would have to travel faster than the speed of sound.
To determine the speed of the projectile exiting Oscars pistol you would have to know if he  made his own bullets or he bought his bullets already made.
If Oscar loaded his own bullets you would need to know what was the weight of the load/ charge.
To give you a rough idea here is a ballistic chart for standard USA issue rounds.
http://www.ballistics101.com/9mm.php
Regarding Stipp's statement unless the state can prove that more than four shots were fired, it is evident that Stipp could not tell the difference between the sound of a cricket bat used to break down a door & a gun shot.

Regarding Oscar's exgirlfirend, her emotions revealed that she was deeply hurt by the fact of her version of Oscar cheating on her.
Can the state rely on her statement or does she have a vendetta against Oscar & her statement is a way of making him pay for hurting her?

----------

newBix (08-Mar-14)

----------


## Hermes14

Does anyone know what pistol Oscar used to shoot Reeva with?

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Taurus 9mm springs to mind

----------

newBix (08-Mar-14)

----------


## KristiKat

> Oscar should get Julias Malema to represent him: "I deed not steel from you poor peopol...neva...it is e-political plot against me..."
> 
> "I deed not mean to put 4 dumdum bulllets inna de ghost dat was taking de peepee inna de bathroom, it issa de plot to sweep-a my legs from unda me!"


malema would be dreaming of nothing but to steal the show...

the ANC would never allow it,

anyhow who wants a LEADER who tells his followers TO PAY HIS DEBT OFF,

before he can become president,

when it will never happen?!

he is apparently not afraid that if it backfires,

that he might be the one ending up in the morgue,

and his killers would be where OSCAR Is now,

stealing the entire show

for killing the biggest joke in south african politics.




> this is much better than watching golf. Golf makes me sleepy in about 10min they did it in 6min LOL


...what you talking about?

this is really boring,

because we know the real reason behind all this smoke screening.

to take our attention away from the real corruption and crime going on in this country....




> I am watching this myself and I wonder who is on trial right now I am thinking the witness...? 
> I mean shame man she is doing her best but I think her statement might be to long?


the longer they can stretch it out,

the longer the zombies would be sedated,

and the more money zuma can steal.

----------


## KristiKat

> Does anyone know what pistol Oscar used to shoot Reeva with?


..use the same gun he used to shoot his girlfriend to kill himself...




> I would like to see the door and the bullet holes...


they took out the door to examine it, messed up the entire ballistics investigation,

the door had to be in the ROOM to do the computerized angling....




> From what I have heard ADV Barry Roux is costing Oscar R50 000 - 00 per day in court.
> I don't know how much the rest of his legal team is charging him.


all these technicalities that are enquired about and the EXCLUSIVE TV CHANNEL for oscar's case, 

is a smoke screen,

designed to take our attention away from that which really matters...

i mean who cares about these things?

what you should be worrying about is the UNLAWFUL petrol rising schemes and taxes.

----------


## Hermes14

> .
> 
> all these technicalities that are enquired about and the EXCLUSIVE TV CHANNEL for oscar's case, 
> 
> is a smoke screen,
> 
> designed to take our attention away from that which really matters...
> 
> i mean who cares about these things?
> ...


This case has got global attention, so how is it a smoke screen?
This is not a soap opera, a man's life is at stake here.
If he is guilty murder he must face the full rath of the law & face a life sentence in prison.
The whole world is watching how South Africa handles this case.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Eish...Fresco getting fried!

----------


## Hermes14

> Eish...Fresco getting fried!


There are a lot of Barry's questions that he didn't understand.
He also doesn't know what a hair trigger means.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...h/hair-trigger

Regarding the Pathologist (Prof Saayman) giving evidence.
According to tweets, Prof Saayman said any of the projectiles could have kill the deceased.
If you look at each of the  projectiles individually that penetrated the body of the deceased.
What would the maximum time period be that the deceased could have remained conscious enough to be able to scream.
How long would the deceased lived

----------


## Hermes14

I wonder how evidence that is damaged in police custody will effect the case?

----------


## desA

> We the people...


In Julius' case, becomes




> I the popoel...

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

State says they will close case early next week.

----------


## Hermes14

When WO Stander (state photographer) gave his evidence in court, Barry Roux asked his if he was the only one in the house at the crime scene.
WO Stander stood firm on his statement that he was the only one there.
After asking Stander the same question numerous times ADV Roux revealed that meta data of another set of photos & his photo showed the same time.
Barry roux proved that Stander’s Colonel was with him when he was taking the photos of the crime scene.
How will this effect Stander’s evidence he gave & can any legal action be taken against him?
Taking into account that he was most probably instructed to say that he was the only one on the crime scene.

----------


## desA

This case says a huge amount about how South Africans think.

A woman is dead, brutally killed at the hand of a (famous) man, using a gun loaded with deadly dum-dum ammunition.

People focus on the small details, yet miss the big picture. The answer needs to be at minimum manslaughter, moving towards various levels of murder. Not a very difficult equation to solve. In the end, the difference in effective jail time for this brutal killer, no matter the sentence, will be very little. Lock him up & be done with the charade.

----------


## ians

They are just trying to determine the length of time he will be sitting. Fact is he is guilty, his life was not in danger, shot through a locked door or beaten to death with the cricket bat either way it is just the sh!t levels that vary.

Only person gona walk away here with a smile on his face is the lawyer/attorney or whatever he is and his legal team, he will have mud on his smiling face because he couldnt find a loophole in the system but a much wealthier man. 

If Oscar is smart he will get sick and play the sick act like most politician and their cronies for the get out of jail free card.

----------


## Marq

I put it to you that:-
He is *charged* with murder *with premeditation* in the shooting death of*... .

*That anything to the contrary,....... like not premeditated - means he will walk.

----------


## desA

If this killer walks free, then the SA legal system will be the laughing stock of the world.

----------


## Hermes14

> This case says a huge amount about how South Africans think.
> 
> A woman is dead, brutally killed at the hand of a (famous) man, using a gun loaded with deadly dum-dum ammunition.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon
The black talon bullet is a hollow point made for pistols.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet
The dumdum is a bullet that is designed to expand on impact, increasing in diameter to limit penetration and/or produce a larger diameter wound.
They were invented in 1896 by Cpt Neville Bertie-Clay for the .303 Army assault rifle.At the time any expanding bullet designed to create a bigger wound was called a dumdum bullet.

I usually carry one magazine with full metal jacket bullet & another one with hollow points.
When travelling in my car I have the  full metal jackets loaded, when going into an area where there are a lot of civillians I change magazines.
If my family, a third person or myself becomes a victim of a first scheduled offence where a threat is imminent I will use what ever force is necessary to stop the perpetrator. 
My intention will be to stop the intruder not injure or kill innocent victims in the vicinity.




> People focus on the small details, yet miss the big picture. The answer needs to be at minimum manslaughter, moving towards various levels of murder. Not a very difficult equation to solve. In the end, the difference in effective jail time for this brutal killer, no matter the sentence, will be very little. Lock him up & be done with the charade.


Oscar has been charged with murder.
The state is trying to prove premeditated murder.
What ever the state proves has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
This means that the defense only has to prove that there is doubt in the evidence that the state is providing. (in this case the wittnesses)

After hearing all the evidence from both parties the Judge has to determine what was Oscar’s intention when he pulled the trigger & how would a reasonable person in a sound state of mind have reacted.

Therefore it is critical that you evaluate every bit of evidence

----------


## desA

Ouch. Has SA come to this?   :Confused:

----------


## Hermes14

> Ouch. Has SA come to this?


Although the laws have changed drastically since roman era the principals are still more or less the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_South_Africa

----------


## desA

SA needs a total re-write of its laws, to suit its present circumstances. Justice needs to be cascaded down to everyone... The days of an elitist legal system must surely be relegated to the trash heaps of history.

Napoleon apparently orchestrated such a re-write of French Law during his time.

----------


## Citizen X

This trial has many South Africans glued to the screen or radio...

----------


## Hermes14

QUOTE=desA;107888]SA needs a total re-write of its laws, to suit its present circumstances. Justice needs to be cascaded down to everyone... The days of an elitist legal system must surely be relegated to the trash heaps of history.

Napoleon apparently orchestrated such a re-write of French Law during his time.[/QUOTE]

Who would you like to have re-writing the new law, & how would you suggest the law be re-written?




> This trial has many South Africans glued to the screen or radio...


According to carte blanche (dstv channel 199) this trial has worldwide coverage.
The advantage is it has been very educational for anyone wanting to pursue a career in South African criminal law.
The disadvantage is it has been very educational to criminals aswell.

----------


## Citizen X

Personally, I'm looking forward to 2 events this week, the State closing it's case and the Defence opening its case

----------


## Hermes14

Then it will be Adv Nel's turn to knit pick the witnesss statement & that will be interesting.
I see Oscar has had to sell his house to cover legal costs.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Os...costs-20140320

----------


## Dave A

The greatest obstacle to justice for all would seem to be legal fees  :Frown:

----------

desA (24-Mar-14)

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Unfortunately so. It's not so much the hourly rate, which is what many concentrate on, but the time involved.

----------


## desA

Two systems of law:

1.  Innocent until proven guilty.
1.1  One person can tie up immense resources who have to 'prove' the case against the baddie.
1.2  Clogs the legal system.
1.3  Baddie can carry on as 'normal' until the court finally stops him - if ever.

2.  Guilty until proven innocent.
2.1  Baddie has to do the running around to prove his innocence.
2.2  Far less stress on the legal system.
2.3  Baddie's hands are tied & further damage limited.

----------


## desA

> Dave A stated:
> The greatest obstacle to justice for all would seem to be legal fees


Fees & wasted time.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

I think the media is not potraying fees responsibly and they refer only to top earners.I believe that supply and demand economics control pricing.Attorneys fees range from R400 per hour to R3000 an hour.*
Counsel, may consult at R1500 upwards, appearance from R1000(unopposed) and R4-R10 000 (opposed)Given the price range, it means there is a broad spectrum, skills probably comensurate..thats life. We cant all drive luxury cars, big houses etc. Things cant and wont be equal, thats capitalism. 
You choose your legal assistance and skill based on what you can afford.Re the R50 000 per day for senior counsel. Yes R50000 equates to say R6000 per hour, but what is not mentioned or taken into account is that prior to the day he may have spent 6-8 hours researching and preparing. Now we looking at R3000 per hour, not a bad rate for a SC. As a litigant I could use junior counsel (say 5 years experience) and perhaps my bill would be R10000 per day, or effectively R700 per hour (8 hours at court and 6 for prep).

If government wasted less money on litigating unneccessarily, or punished officials who allowed matters go to court, we would have pleny spare cash for litigants. Never mind what we pay for officials, especially the presidency, both personally and officially, to litigate.Yes, access to justice is important. Unfortunately litigating is expensive. Even at R500 per hour, puts it beyond the majority. This is becuase people underestimate the number of hours that go into a matter. Even if you get in and out in 15 hours, you still need R25 000 at the ready, and thats a real straight forward matter to be done in 15 hours.

Access to justice requires not capping of fees but more FREE services by the profession.*There are a number of legal products for R100 or so a month, allowing people to get protection. That creates a level of access. If you cant pay the R100 then you are stuck irrespective at what rate fees are capped.

Law firms and advocates deliver a mountain of free services. I worked for ProBono.Org, a NGO that gets lawyers and advocates to act probono. Bowman Gilfillan delivers R20 million a year in free legal services. Norton Rose, Cliffe Dekker,werksmens, Weber Wentzel and others all deliver. The advocactes at all bars do probono hours. I cant put a figure but conservativley it easily tops R500 million.

Probono work is compulsory, the problem or challenge is managing it. It cant just be goto any law firm and they will help you.*At this stage only the law soceity and ProBono.Org do this. Of course one can approach the court for pauper proceedings. This is what government needs to concentrate on, how to manage the process. Given the 20 000 attornyes in practice, unlocking the 24 hrs each, equates to almost 500 000 hours..thats access to justice. This excludes counsel.

Attorneys can certainly put the free hours in. If you are booked 8 hours a day, then you can give up 5 hours a month, you are making plenty. If you only getting 3 hours a day, then you have time to do some free work, given that time is money.

----------

CLIVE-TRIANGLE (25-Mar-14), Dave A (25-Mar-14), xcorporation (27-Mar-14)

----------


## wynn

If you have a legal problem there should be a legislated minimum that an attorney charges to listen to your side of the story, thereafter, if he feels you have a case, he must take it on contingency, if he doesn't win he doesn't get paid, that will free up a lot of space taken up by lawyers simply charging to represent wealthy clients to outlast not so wealthy ones.
Also if an attorney sees the defendant doesn't stand a hope in hell of winning he will rather recommend a settlement.

----------


## Marq

> You choose your legal assistance and skill based on what you can afford



This seems to be crux of the matter. I can only afford somebody charging R100/h and find myself going up against legal council whose skill base and name allows them to charge R3-6k/h. What are my odds of winning?

The legal products that cost R100 a month are not an answer for any problem beyond a paperwork shuffle. I have tested them and found the council rather wanting and it is doubtful that some of them are even qualified. A dangerous situation to be in when you are trying to win a case thats not so obvious.

I dont know that supply and demand is that obvious either. I have yet to see an attorney drop their price or suggest a cheaper alternative when I have needed assistance and baulked at the fees charged.

I think there should be a maximum fee per hour per council level so that one can determine a possible ceiling on each scenario.

I find it ludicrous and opportunistic that one has to sell ones main asset like a house just to pay somebody who doesn't/cant guarantee a favourable outcome. Assume you are innocent and have been wrongly charged with a huge crime. You may end up out of jail, but your life is ruined, you have no where to stay and no resources to start again that easily. The council who only had their maybe reputation to lose, sits up their ivory tower drinking champagne and celebrating their win without a thought of their now ex-client who is about to rob a grocery store so that he can eat something. 

Perhaps another methodology could be to make the council be equally charged with their clients charge and if the case is lost, let them do the same time. Perhaps then the fees could be justified.

----------


## Marq

I put it to you that:-
Kenny Oldwadge seems to have been to the same Hogwarts school of legal subterfuge as the Le Roux guy, but I think he is losing the defence some points. Twisting the story left and right without success this morning. Nel even objected at one point, which must be a first. Maybe/perhaps/apparently/without prejudice, Oldwadge is the probono portion of the trial. :Wink:

----------


## desA

Kenny Oldwadge seems like a really obnoxious character. A bit of a prat, I thought & a rude one at that.

----------


## Hermes14

QUOTE=desA;107985]Two systems of law:

1.  Innocent until proven guilty.
1.1  One person can tie up immense resources who have to 'prove' the case against the baddie.
1.2  Clogs the legal system.
1.3  Baddie can carry on as 'normal' until the court finally stops him - if ever.

2.  Guilty until proven innocent.
2.1  Baddie has to do the running around to prove his innocence.
2.2  Far less stress on the legal system.
2.3  Baddie's hands are tied & further damage limited.[/QUOTE]

You must remember that we are dealing with human beings.
I would classify a Judge or magistrates task more of an art than a science.
There is no text book that can teach you how to tell if a person is innocent or guilty.
At the end of the day a Judge has got to rely on her/his knowledge & experience to determine if a person is innocent or guilty.
DesA how would yo feel if you were sentenced to life for a crime you did not commit & 15 years down the line they catch the real criminal.
Sterne as soon as you employ a lawyer to fight a case for you he does a thorough background check on you. 
Most of them do try to milk every possible cent they can out of you especially in the lower courts.
One point I must agree on is that there is a lot preparation that goes in to a case before it goes to court but every time the case gets postponed he smiles because he charges a he charges you for a full day in court.
A few years back I made a civil case against a security company that shot my dogs.
Luckily I had the knowledge to do the investigation myself but I needed special wittnesses to testify.
My lawyer was charging me R8000-00 a day in court & my Advocate was charging me R20 000-00 a day in court,
For every email my lawyer received cost me R85-00 
There was a fee for every phone, email & fax call he made  & a fee for everyone he received & this is all before you even go to court.
This is where I learn't when you phone your lawyer plan what you are going to say to him & keep the conversation as short as possible.





> I put it to you that:-
> Kenny Oldwadge seems to have been to the same Hogwarts school of legal subterfuge as the Le Roux guy, but I think he is losing the defence some points. Twisting the story left and right without success this morning. Nel even objected at one point, which must be a first. Maybe/perhaps/apparently/without prejudice, Oldwadge is the probono portion of the trial.


He is getting paid to defend his client no matter if he is guilty or not.
That is why he is using every possible trick in the book he possibly can.
His objective is to create as much doubt as possible in the withnesses statement as possible.

After listening to all the wittnesses evidence , (neighbours not special wittnesses)I have come to the conclusion that they are unsure of the sequence of events involving the first four loud bangs & the screaming. This could be crucial in determining if it is premeditated murder of an assumption of self defense.

Hearing this new evidence that CAPT Moller is bring out regarding the cell phones is very interesting, There is the possibility that this could be pre meditated murder.

----------


## xcorporation

Hermes,

Might want to wiki on the requirements for a sa judge.

i have worked in several dozen magistrate courts and i can tell you, they see things thats not even said by both parties. yet valid.
The purpose of LLB degree outweigh your statements about "There is no text book that can teach you how to tell if a person is innocent or guilty".

Regards

----------

desA (27-Mar-14)

----------

