04-09-2014, 08:48 AM
Yeah, I can't speak to the voracity of the high court's rationale regarding its ruling.
But, your colleagues' opinions reminded me of the judge's public statements released earlier this year -- clearly the high court is quite aware of the negative perception of South Africa's justice system. Whether they're really on a mission to improve the system (which would not be a one-case/overnight endeavor, of course) and make it more transparent, or instead just taking this high-profile opportunity to create such an image, is something that I don't know.
In either case, based on what I've seen of the trial thus far, I do believe that Prosecutor Nel and his team are doing everything they can to make a solid case for murder.
I haven't followed many criminal cases out of Australia, but in the US, attacking the integrity of the LE investigation/processing/personnel (as Roux has done) is par for the course for the Defense team in such a case.
And, I think you're right -- if Pistorius is convicted, the Defense will likely push that LE intentionally mishandled or manufactured evidence in order to get the conviction (also a standard appeal issue in the US).
In Pistorius' case, unfortunately, IMO there were some egregious oversights in the handling of evidence -- like not examining prints on the toilet door, watches stolen from Pistorius' home during the investigation, LE footprints reflected in the crime scene photos, the unsecured storage of the toilet door after it was entered into evidence...
The fact that former Lead Detective Botha claimed initially that Pistorius had his legs on and had steroids in his home (false) might also lend more credence to a standard Defense claim of LE incompetence / corruption as well (though those early Botha fuck-ups have been acknowledged and, to his credit, Nel did not attempt to hold on to them or backpedal out of them -- just threw them out of the equation and the case).
Very interesting case study -- hope it ultimately results in appropriate justice for Reeva Steenkamp.
But, your colleagues' opinions reminded me of the judge's public statements released earlier this year -- clearly the high court is quite aware of the negative perception of South Africa's justice system. Whether they're really on a mission to improve the system (which would not be a one-case/overnight endeavor, of course) and make it more transparent, or instead just taking this high-profile opportunity to create such an image, is something that I don't know.
In either case, based on what I've seen of the trial thus far, I do believe that Prosecutor Nel and his team are doing everything they can to make a solid case for murder.
I haven't followed many criminal cases out of Australia, but in the US, attacking the integrity of the LE investigation/processing/personnel (as Roux has done) is par for the course for the Defense team in such a case.
And, I think you're right -- if Pistorius is convicted, the Defense will likely push that LE intentionally mishandled or manufactured evidence in order to get the conviction (also a standard appeal issue in the US).
In Pistorius' case, unfortunately, IMO there were some egregious oversights in the handling of evidence -- like not examining prints on the toilet door, watches stolen from Pistorius' home during the investigation, LE footprints reflected in the crime scene photos, the unsecured storage of the toilet door after it was entered into evidence...
The fact that former Lead Detective Botha claimed initially that Pistorius had his legs on and had steroids in his home (false) might also lend more credence to a standard Defense claim of LE incompetence / corruption as well (though those early Botha fuck-ups have been acknowledged and, to his credit, Nel did not attempt to hold on to them or backpedal out of them -- just threw them out of the equation and the case).
Very interesting case study -- hope it ultimately results in appropriate justice for Reeva Steenkamp.