02-22-2013, 10:56 AM
Pistorius is being processed for release to his family. Not sure of the bail amount or the conditions yet.
Here's Judge Nair's decision summary in granting bail.
• He (Judge Nair) 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 their 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?
• Nair also said that he had difficulty with the defence's version of why the accused slept on the other side of the bed from usual that night.
Imo, the bottom line for him agreeing to bail is that he thought that Detective Botha did a terrible job in vetting and presenting evidence to the court regarding the crime itself and the issue of flight risk (I agree; glad he's out). But, Nair stated that Botha's weaknesses in the bail hearing do not weaken the state's case and that he (Nair) has major concerns with some of the improbabilities in Pistorius's account.
Nair stipulated that he was not addressing the probability of guilt today. He did not grant bail based on the strength of Pistorius's defense. He agreed to bail because the state failed to prove sufficiently that Pistorius was a flight risk (he also mentioned jail overcrowding).
Reading Nair's deliberations sequentially, as he explained them to the court today, was interesting to me. It's not a long read. You can choose "oldest first" view in the article linked below to see everything that he considered in order and what led to his decision. It was a rollercoaster. At several points I thought he was building up to denying bail. I think this was a tough call for him.
All here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/201...e-coverage
Here's Judge Nair's decision summary in granting bail.
• He (Judge Nair) 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 their 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?
• Nair also said that he had difficulty with the defence's version of why the accused slept on the other side of the bed from usual that night.
Imo, the bottom line for him agreeing to bail is that he thought that Detective Botha did a terrible job in vetting and presenting evidence to the court regarding the crime itself and the issue of flight risk (I agree; glad he's out). But, Nair stated that Botha's weaknesses in the bail hearing do not weaken the state's case and that he (Nair) has major concerns with some of the improbabilities in Pistorius's account.
Nair stipulated that he was not addressing the probability of guilt today. He did not grant bail based on the strength of Pistorius's defense. He agreed to bail because the state failed to prove sufficiently that Pistorius was a flight risk (he also mentioned jail overcrowding).
Reading Nair's deliberations sequentially, as he explained them to the court today, was interesting to me. It's not a long read. You can choose "oldest first" view in the article linked below to see everything that he considered in order and what led to his decision. It was a rollercoaster. At several points I thought he was building up to denying bail. I think this was a tough call for him.
All here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/201...e-coverage