Greater Than
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 3,948
- Reaction score
- 73
This frustrates me so much if true: (regarding Roux hinting at appeal as a 'number' of witnesses did not testify due to media)
Criminal law experts believe the move is critical to keeping Pistorius out of prison if he is convicted. It tries to show that he has been prejudiced from the beginning of proceedings and prevented from getting a fair trial.
Professor Anthony Minnaar, of the Unisa school of criminology, said the strategy was clear and "transparent".
"It is to keep all options open for appeal . [An] appeal could very well be successful as Pistorius's defence team will be able to show that not all evidence has been heard as certain witnesses were too 'afraid' to testify.
"If they are successful in applying for an appeal, a whole new case will have to be made as the entire case will have to be taken up on review," he said.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/07/09/oscar-keeps-all-options-open
BIB - Here's the problem with that IMO:
Prior to the media application ruling, OP's media management team set up the twitter account @OscarHardTruth to share factual information about the trial. Because the public would be receiving secondhand updates and/or tweets from journalists inside the courtroom, they wanted to ensure unbiased facts would be relayed by providing them themselves.
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-team-sets-twitter-account/
There was public controversy regarding the motives of that twitter account, to which OP's media manager stated:
Its not a PR vehicle, she said, adding that the accounts purpose was not to comment on the case.
The court case must run its course and we have been very clear about that, she said.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-blasted-for-twitter-hard-truth-1.1652525#.U8CNcdq9KSM
Then, although the DT opposed it, Judge Mlambo approved the media application referring to SA's constitution in regards to freedom of the press and the principle of open justice which requires that a trial be conducted in open public. He addressed the witnesses' right to privacy by placing certain restrictions on the order (not to be on camera if they opposed) and covered all bases by including the provision that the presiding judge (Masipa) had the right to halt the audio/audio-visual broadcasting if concerns were raised. After the ruling, media reported:
It was not immediately clear if the defence would appeal the ruling, a decision which could delay the start of the trial.
We are still studying the judgement, Pistoriuss lawyer Brian Webber told AFP.
http://www.heraldlive.co.za/pistorius-media-application-partly-approved/
The DT did not appeal, and trial began one week later with cameras rolling.
Two weeks into the trial, OP's media manager released a statement on OP's official website:
Two days before the commencement of the trial, the Pistorius family released a statement to the effect that they would not be engaging in public commentary during the court case.
This clearly also applied to commentary via the @OscarHardTruth Twitter account.
Some days after the establishment of the Twitter platform, the public were provided with unexpectedly broad access to the trial through a ruling that allowed the proceedings to be televised, giving the public first-hand access to every detail of the court case.
It was, and remains, the familys view that further commentary is therefore superfluous, and that the truth must now be allowed to emerge in court.
http://oscarpistorius.com/communication-protocol-during-this-phase-of-the-trial/
So, while the DT did publicly oppose the media application to broadcast, they did not appeal the ruling. Further, OP's media management team, who represents and speaks for OP and his family, appeared to be very pleased that the public would not have to rely on secondhand updates, even from OP's own team, as it would be televised live for us all to view and hear for ourselves. And finally, there was a provision in the media order that allowed for milady to restrict broadcasting of certain witnesses, but the DT did not request that she do so.
An appeal of the verdict will undoubtedly include the broadcasting of the trial, but based on the above, I just don't see how it won't be rejected by either Masipa or the Supreme Court of Appeal.
MOO