Oscar Pistorius trial

[Redsgirl]

Anybody been following this?

It always promised to be something of a circus, but it seems to be exceeding expectations just three days in, what with the steady annihilation of the first two witnesses, including identifying them on screen and broadcasting their phone number, a rather random testimony from a fellow sportsman about Pistorius firing a gun under a restaurant table and the daily frenzy outside the court.

I'm also surprised by the fact that there is no jury, and that the verdict will be decided by just one judge.
Can something so important for all involved come down to just one person's opinion?

There are lots of thing I've seen during the proceedings so far that have seemed just bizarre, though thankfully I've never been inside a British crown court, and maybe a high profile murder case over here would look just as sensational if they let the camera's in?
I really don't know, but I can't see this trial having any satisfactory outcome.

[Woodsey]

Thought she was a burglar, yeah right  

As with a few other countries, there are just too many damn guns in South Africa.

[the sicilian]

Anybody been following this?

It always promised to be something of a circus, but it seems to be exceeding expectations just three days in, what with the steady annihilation of the first two witnesses, including identifying them on screen and broadcasting their phone number, a rather random testimony from a fellow sportsman about Pistorius firing a gun under a restaurant table and the daily frenzy outside the court.

I'm also surprised by the fact that there is no jury, and that the verdict will be decided by just one judge.
Can something so important for all involved come down to just one person's opinion?

There are lots of thing I've seen during the proceedings so far that have seemed just bizarre, though thankfully I've never been inside a British crown court, and maybe a high profile murder case over here would look just as sensational if they let the camera's in?
I really don't know, but I can't see this trial having any satisfactory outcome.

Makes the bribing easier.. if theres one thing more of than guns in South Africa its corruption...

[Redsgirl]

Anybody been following this?

It always promised to be something of a circus, but it seems to be exceeding expectations just three days in, what with the steady annihilation of the first two witnesses, including identifying them on screen and broadcasting their phone number, a rather random testimony from a fellow sportsman about Pistorius firing a gun under a restaurant table and the daily frenzy outside the court.

I'm also surprised by the fact that there is no jury, and that the verdict will be decided by just one judge.
Can something so important for all involved come down to just one person's opinion?

There are lots of thing I've seen during the proceedings so far that have seemed just bizarre, though thankfully I've never been inside a British crown court, and maybe a high profile murder case over here would look just as sensational if they let the camera's in?
I really don't know, but I can't see this trial having any satisfactory outcome.

Makes the bribing easier.. if theres one thing more of than guns in South Africa its corruption...

Witnesses and police officers maybe, but the judge? Under the scrutiny of the whole world?

So many of South Africa's issues are highlighted by this case, domestic violence, eliteism, racial and gender inequality, gun crime as Woodsey mentioned and corruption amongst the ruling authorities as you pointed out.
I'd like to think with so much at stake he wont be able to buy his way out, but I worry he may benefit from the incompetence of the prosecuting team.

[Acidmouse]

I dont always think its a bad thing that there is no jury. Jury's can easily be swayed, worn down with irrelevent stuff to create doubts where none exsist, especially in long cases involving famous people.

[Omm]

I dont always think its a bad thing that there is no jury. Jury's can easily be swayed, worn down with irrelevent stuff to create doubts where none exsist, especially in long cases involving famous people.

If it's was me I would prefer a jury, It just seems the fairest way of coming to a Democratic decision. I don't know enough about the justice system to give a reasoned arguement, let alone what it's like in SA, but normal people hearing evidence from both sides and then debating it in private and coming to a decision seems fair.

[Acidmouse]

I dont always think its a bad thing that there is no jury. Jury's can easily be swayed, worn down with irrelevent stuff to create doubts where none exsist, especially in long cases involving famous people.

If it's was me I would prefer a jury, It just seems the fairest way of coming to a Democratic decision. I don't know enough about the justice system to give a reasoned arguement, let alone what it's like in SA, but normal people hearing evidence from both sides and then debating it in private and coming to a decision seems fair.

Getting a jury without prior knowledge of the case would be hard. Zero chance they have no prior views on him as a person and the news coverage he recieved.

Not sure if thats good or bad for him tbh.

[Omm]

I dont always think its a bad thing that there is no jury. Jury's can easily be swayed, worn down with irrelevent stuff to create doubts where none exsist, especially in long cases involving famous people.

If it's was me I would prefer a jury, It just seems the fairest way of coming to a Democratic decision. I don't know enough about the justice system to give a reasoned arguement, let alone what it's like in SA, but normal people hearing evidence from both sides and then debating it in private and coming to a decision seems fair.

Getting a jury without prior knowledge of the case would be hard. Zero chance they have no prior views on him as a person and the news coverage he recieved.

Not sure if thats good or bad for him tbh.

Yeah, fair points. Very bad situation for all involved.

[RED-DOG]

Anybody been following this?

It always promised to be something of a circus, but it seems to be exceeding expectations just three days in, what with the steady annihilation of the first two witnesses, including identifying them on screen and broadcasting their phone number, a rather random testimony from a fellow sportsman about Pistorius firing a gun under a restaurant table and the daily frenzy outside the court.

I'm also surprised by the fact that there is no jury, and that the verdict will be decided by just one judge.
Can something so important for all involved come down to just one person's opinion?

There are lots of thing I've seen during the proceedings so far that have seemed just bizarre, though thankfully I've never been inside a British crown court, and maybe a high profile murder case over here would look just as sensational if they let the camera's in?
I really don't know, but I can't see this trial having any satisfactory outcome.

Makes the bribing easier.. if theres one thing more of than guns in South Africa its corruption...

Witnesses and police officers maybe, but the judge? Under the scrutiny of the whole world?

So many of South Africa's issues are highlighted by this case, domestic violence, eliteism, racial and gender inequality, gun crime as Woodsey mentioned and corruption amongst the ruling authorities as you pointed out.
I'd like to think with so much at stake he wont be able to buy his way out, but I worry he may benefit from the incompetence of the prosecuting team.

It surprises me when I realise that this bright, eloquent, socially aware young woman is the same person who used to sit on my knee and steal bits of my dinner while we discussed the exploits of Zippy and Bungle.

 

[Redsgirl]

Anybody been following this?

It always promised to be something of a circus, but it seems to be exceeding expectations just three days in, what with the steady annihilation of the first two witnesses, including identifying them on screen and broadcasting their phone number, a rather random testimony from a fellow sportsman about Pistorius firing a gun under a restaurant table and the daily frenzy outside the court.

I'm also surprised by the fact that there is no jury, and that the verdict will be decided by just one judge.
Can something so important for all involved come down to just one person's opinion?

There are lots of thing I've seen during the proceedings so far that have seemed just bizarre, though thankfully I've never been inside a British crown court, and maybe a high profile murder case over here would look just as sensational if they let the camera's in?
I really don't know, but I can't see this trial having any satisfactory outcome.

Makes the bribing easier.. if theres one thing more of than guns in South Africa its corruption...

Witnesses and police officers maybe, but the judge? Under the scrutiny of the whole world?

So many of South Africa's issues are highlighted by this case, domestic violence, eliteism, racial and gender inequality, gun crime as Woodsey mentioned and corruption amongst the ruling authorities as you pointed out.
I'd like to think with so much at stake he wont be able to buy his way out, but I worry he may benefit from the incompetence of the prosecuting team.

It surprises me when I realise that this bright, eloquent, socially aware young woman is the same person who used to sit on my knee and steal bits of my dinner while we discussed the exploits of Zippy and Bungle.

 

Aww!  I'm blushing now.
BTW I still steal bits of your dinner! 

[celtic]

Anybody been following this?

It always promised to be something of a circus, but it seems to be exceeding expectations just three days in, what with the steady annihilation of the first two witnesses, including identifying them on screen and broadcasting their phone number, a rather random testimony from a fellow sportsman about Pistorius firing a gun under a restaurant table and the daily frenzy outside the court.

I'm also surprised by the fact that there is no jury, and that the verdict will be decided by just one judge.
Can something so important for all involved come down to just one person's opinion?

There are lots of thing I've seen during the proceedings so far that have seemed just bizarre, though thankfully I've never been inside a British crown court, and maybe a high profile murder case over here would look just as sensational if they let the camera's in?
I really don't know, but I can't see this trial having any satisfactory outcome.

Makes the bribing easier.. if theres one thing more of than guns in South Africa its corruption...

Witnesses and police officers maybe, but the judge? Under the scrutiny of the whole world?

So many of South Africa's issues are highlighted by this case, domestic violence, eliteism, racial and gender inequality, gun crime as Woodsey mentioned and corruption amongst the ruling authorities as you pointed out.
I'd like to think with so much at stake he wont be able to buy his way out, but I worry he may benefit from the incompetence of the prosecuting team.

It surprises me when I realise that this bright, eloquent, socially aware young woman is the same person who used to sit on my knee and steal bits of my dinner while we discussed the exploits of Zippy and Bungle.

 

Must take after her mum.

[MintTrav]

I dont always think its a bad thing that there is no jury. Jury's can easily be swayed, worn down with irrelevent stuff to create doubts where none exsist, especially in long cases involving famous people.

If it's was me I would prefer a jury, It just seems the fairest way of coming to a Democratic decision. I don't know enough about the justice system to give a reasoned arguement, let alone what it's like in SA, but normal people hearing evidence from both sides and then debating it in private and coming to a decision seems fair.

Getting a jury without prior knowledge of the case would be hard. Zero chance they have no prior views on him as a person and the news coverage he recieved.

Not sure if thats good or bad for him tbh.

The judge is experienced in law, so knows what 'reasonable doubt' actually means, for example, and is trained to take a balanced view and minimise the influence of emotions of their decisions, whereas juries tend to be less rational and more emotional in their decision-making. In this case, jurors may favour him because of his fame but might be biased against him because of the nature of the crime and his personality flaws that have emerged. This judge has previous for going hard on domestic violence and for speaking out on women's rights, but she is still much less likely to be prejudiced than a jury. Overall, though, the case against him is strong, so he would be better off with a jury due to their less rational and more unpredictable conclusions.

[redsimon]

Jury trials were abolished in South Africa in 1969

[Redsgirl]

I dint always think its a bad thing that there is no jury. Jury's can easily be swayed, worn down with irrelevent stuff to create doubts where none exsist, especially in long cases involving famous people.

If it's was me I would prefer a jury, It just seems the fairest way of coming to a Democratic decision. I don't know enough about the justice system to give a reasoned arguement, let alone what it's like in SA, but normal people hearing evidence from both sides and then debating it in private and coming to a decision seems fair.

Getting a jury without prior knowledge of the case would be hard. Zero chance they have no prior views on him as a person and the news coverage he recieved.

Not sure if thats good or bad for him tbh.

The judge is experienced in law, so knows what 'reasonable doubt' actually means, for example, and is trained to take a balanced view and minimise the influence of emotions of their decisions, whereas juries tend to be less rational and more emotional in their decision-making. In this case, jurors may favour him because of his fame but might be biased against him because of the nature of the crime and his personality flaws that have emerged. This judge has previous for going hard on domestic violence and for speaking out on women's rights, but she is still much less likely to be prejudiced than a jury. Overall, though, the case against him is strong, so he would be better off with a jury due to their less rational and more unpredictable conclusions.

Of course the judge is the best person for the job, but it's the fact that it's just the one I was surprised at.
I'm not sure but I think I saw a none jury trail in a British court where the verdict was decided by three judges, which seems a much fairer (although as you say wouldn't be of any advantage to Pistorius!)

[rfgqqabc]

The case itself is fascinating. The bbc were offering a clickthrough model of his house. I found that a touch spooky.