Trial Discussion Thread #4 - 14.03.10, Day 6

[Really?]

we are back

 

[Peliman]

I have to fit in with my therapists first job as a taxi driver..

did you know.. in Rome, there are only 2 therapists?? and they analyse each other??

Mine told me I'm not crazy, I'm just a carrier.

 

[sorrell skye]

The order of the gunshots wounds is one of major points of argument of this trial thus far.

The State has put forth the wound to the head was last.

The Defense has claimed the wound to the head was first.

I understand wanting to respect the dignity of the deceased and her family, but in the interests of the transparency of justice for the deceased, I think the public should be able to hear the postmortem evidence.

 

[BritsKate]

David Smith ‏@SmithInAfrica 57m
Roux supports the request on grounds that protecting the Steenkamps outweighs the public interest. #Pistorius slumps with head in hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-six-tweets-live
-------------
One must wonder if protecting the Steenkamps was truly such a concern - why put them through the pain of a trial at all? Why didn't his client plead guilty to culpable homicide?

JMO

 

[Trooper]

court resuming.. Saayman on the stand..

he is bound by certain ethical rules.. statutory rules.. all in regard to his conduct re not broadcasting the autopsy evidence.


reasons..

1. unfiltered speakers.. the personal nature.. graphic details, pertaining to wounds.. compromising the dignity of the deceased.. he must preserve her dignity.
2. by such public broadcast will harm the rights of the relatives.
3. it goes against the good conduct of society..

( Dutch Reformed stuff, , carol?? )

IF it is made available it should be filtered

1. his position. do no harm.
2. always do good.
3. respect for the autonomy of his patient.
4. distributive justice.

 

[katydid23]

The order of the gunshots wounds is one of major points of argument of this trial thus far.

The State has put forth the wound to the head was last.

The Defense has claimed the wound to the head was first.

I understand wanting to respect the dignity of the deceased and her family, but in the interests of the transparency of justice for the deceased, I think the public should be able to hear the postmortem evidence.

Well Said.

 

[FrancesB]

I think they were arguing, she took refuge in toilet, Pistorius demanded she come out, but she wouldn't. Pistorius tried to pull open the door, went and got his gun, fired two shots through the panel. Reeva was holding the door shut . Pistorius went and got cricket bat and broke panel, Reeva screaming in fear. Panel broke, and Pistorius fired whilst he was looking straight at her. That's what I think.

Was the door really locked? I actually think it wasn't and that Reeva was having to hold the door shut with all her might, hence being in the position she was and hit in the right side. Had the door been locked, it would have freed her up to shout through the little toilet window. Pistorius claimed the key was on the floor, only retrievable to him after he broke the panel, but really?

Imagine trying to reach a key from behind a door with only a small space from which to reach. Is it possible?

 

[Trooper]

arguments against this position of Proff Saayman.

establishing principles..

this is the broad cast bloke..

accepts there are legitimate concerns..

accepts the role of the media is to inform

accepts it isn't the role of the media to be sensationalist.

 

[Trooper]

argument put forward..

that the purpose of educating the body politic.. that's you and me, folks, should be paramount..

he accepts that Proff Saayman has to protect Reevas dignity.

Oscar is staring downwards, his head in his hands..

 

[Trooper]

hmm.. says it should not be broadcast...

so far.. I am understanding its the TV/ Radio broadcast.that is in dispute.

the twitter component will be addressed.

 

[Peliman]

Well that does it for me this morning, getting ready for work then. Think I'll start with a little caffeine and some rolaids, fresh oxygen outside for the court ruling.

G'day folks

 

[Trooper]

very dicey argument going on here...

its an all or nothing checkmate...

either all broadcasts, of every kind, or none of any kind..

 

[sorrell skye]

I strongly disagree that the media should only be allowed to paraphrase the testimony.

As those of us who have followed many cases are aware, many times the media gets it wrong.

 

[Really?]

this doesn't sound good for us......no twitter......nothing.......carp what will we do?????

 

[whiterum]

I took it as Nels wanting to protect Reeva's family from the public seeing and hearing the gruesome details. Like it was disrespectful to Reeva.

Which is kind of weird. In my mind, if it was my loved one, I would want people to know the horrific damage the perpetrator had done. I would not want them to be able to hide that viciousness.

I totally agree, how would this disrespect the innocent victim. It is the perpetrator of those wounds, only he will benefit if the live detail of what Reeva suffered at his hands are excluded.

 

[Trooper]

Press chap arguing his case now.

The broadcast media is prepared to produce an attenuated broadcast.. present it to the lawyers.. for veto..

well.. I dunno.

any objections from the defence and prosecution will be binding??

consent will be obtained from Proff Saayman before ANY broadcast.

now about twitter. ..

 

[Trooper]

press bloke Frazier arguing like a tiger for twitter, etc.. not giving up.

 

[Trooper]

Fraziers solution.

no broadcast..
no press.
tweeting from the court up to her ladyships discretion. sees no reason why twitter cannot proceed.

 

[Trooper]

Frazier gets a bit of a dig in. .he wants the order when made to be clear and concise. he doesn't want to be rushing thru the traffic again tomorrow to face a contempt of court..

Press bloke also rejects Roux claim that the press has been disrespectful to Reeva, or indeed Oscar, or any of the witnesses..

 

[Interested Bystander]

This media lawyer is on the ball and very lucid. What a help it would be if Roux and Nel took a leaf out of his book. They are so slow and ponderous it often becomes difficult to follow their argument.