03-06-2014, 06:40 PM
I'm not worried about the judge, personally. She's got a history of harsh judgments against those accused of domestic abuse and other crimes against women. She seems pretty grounded to me and above being swayed by celebrity. Hope I'm not giving her too much credit here.
I'm more worried about Roux. I agree with crash and kevvome that he's looking rather clownish right now. But, I think he's smart and dogged,and he's only trying to counter prosecution claims and witnesses at this point; reactive mode.
If I were defending Pistorius and boxed into his police statement version of events, I'd have been working my ass off to get as many of the following as possible to present at trial with a passion:
1. People who spoke with Burger, Johnson and Spiff and claim to have been told something different by them than what they testified at trial. Attack their credibility again.
2. A list of all the initial evidence presented by LE/Prosecutors in pre-trial hearings that was later retracted or dropped -- i.e. that Pistorius put his false legs on before shooting, that steroids were found in the search of Pistorius' house, that Pistorius never called for help (and whatever else we don't know about). Attack the integrity of the investigation itself and suggest a conspiracy.
3. A recorded demonstration of a cricket bat banging down a door from the distances at which the ear witnesses were located and a recorded demonstration of 9mm shots from the same distances. If I could get a demo where the two sounded close enough, I'd present it and suggest again that the ear witnesses were mistaken / not credible.
4. A recorded demonstration of Pistorius screaming like a girl from the distances of the witnesses. It wouldn't explain away the two distinct voices the witnesses reported, but I'd probably toss out some bullshit about how his pitch changed due to emotions setting in or something like that.
5. An expert with an alternate and defense-favorable interpretation of the evidence to be presented by the prosecution's forensic witnesses (bullet trajectory, blood spatter, etc...).
If Roux has a couple of such tricks up his sleeve or better ones, he might still be able to generate reasonable doubt that things went down the way the authorities and witnesses claim.
I'm more worried about Roux. I agree with crash and kevvome that he's looking rather clownish right now. But, I think he's smart and dogged,and he's only trying to counter prosecution claims and witnesses at this point; reactive mode.
If I were defending Pistorius and boxed into his police statement version of events, I'd have been working my ass off to get as many of the following as possible to present at trial with a passion:
1. People who spoke with Burger, Johnson and Spiff and claim to have been told something different by them than what they testified at trial. Attack their credibility again.
2. A list of all the initial evidence presented by LE/Prosecutors in pre-trial hearings that was later retracted or dropped -- i.e. that Pistorius put his false legs on before shooting, that steroids were found in the search of Pistorius' house, that Pistorius never called for help (and whatever else we don't know about). Attack the integrity of the investigation itself and suggest a conspiracy.
3. A recorded demonstration of a cricket bat banging down a door from the distances at which the ear witnesses were located and a recorded demonstration of 9mm shots from the same distances. If I could get a demo where the two sounded close enough, I'd present it and suggest again that the ear witnesses were mistaken / not credible.
4. A recorded demonstration of Pistorius screaming like a girl from the distances of the witnesses. It wouldn't explain away the two distinct voices the witnesses reported, but I'd probably toss out some bullshit about how his pitch changed due to emotions setting in or something like that.
5. An expert with an alternate and defense-favorable interpretation of the evidence to be presented by the prosecution's forensic witnesses (bullet trajectory, blood spatter, etc...).
If Roux has a couple of such tricks up his sleeve or better ones, he might still be able to generate reasonable doubt that things went down the way the authorities and witnesses claim.