Thats probably it. Witness intimidation can be a problem. Especially with inner city gangs. No one wants to risk testifying because they have to live in that area.
Pistorius doesn’t seem like the type to strong arm witnesses but it doesn’t hurt to be cautious.
his brother is up on murder charges involving a vehicle.
Yes. It’s just one-up-manship in a sibling rivalry.
how many OJs (sensational trial units) is this going to be?
This family just can’t catch a break with women it seems.
Careful - it’s “culpable homicide”, which is defined as “unlawful negligent killing”. It’s analogous to negligent homicide or to lesser forms of manslaughter (or, in this specific case, to the charge some jurisdictions have of “causing death through dangerous driving”). It’s not murder (“unlawful intentional killing”).
It may be a long time before the trial starts, but I heard a new theory the other day: a South African reporter wrote (in Sports Illustrated) that the prosecution wasn’t really committed to denying bail to Pistorius. He suggests they wanted to get a look at the defense and make Pistorius commit to one version of what happened leading up to the shooting. If he diverges from the story he used in the bail hearing, they can bring it up at trial. And it sounds like he’s essentially admitted to violating gun laws and culpable homicide. I don’t know if the judge would have an option to find him guilty of that if he’s not guilty of murder or if he could be put on trial again, but that part seems obvious.
If he’s charged with murder but the evidence only proves culpable homicide the judge can find him guilty of that instead (or assault with intent to commit GBH, common assault, pointing a firearm, and a bunch of other charges). (Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Act.)
I can’t see what the prosecution’s attitude toward bail would have anything to do with revealing the defense strategy. I can’t say I know SA law, but assuming the defense applied for a bail hearing, they would have to put forth their case to a judge regardless of how determined to prosecution was to oppose it.
The prosecution said he shouldn’t be eligible for bail. The defense countered by arguing that the whole thing was an accident and making a very detailed series of statements about what Pistorius did on the night of the shooting. If the prosecution has evidence that contradicts those statements, it’s bad for the defense.
Nitpick: Pistorius has more than one set of prosthetics. The “blades” (God I hate that term) are his running prosthetics, but his daily wear prosthetics are more conventional feet-like things. So even if he put on prosthetics, it is unlikely he was wearing “the blades”.
Look again at the layout and pictures.
The “bathroom” is the room with the bath in it, and the separate room Reeva was sitting on the toilet in is called the “toilet”. There is a window over the tub in the “bathroom”, and a separate window in the “toilet”. Look at the pictures of the tub and see the three-pane window over the tub and outside the door marked “2”. Look at the picture of the toilet and see the light in the mirror over the sink, that light being a separate window inside that room, on the other side of the door marked “2”.
What a clusterfuck. The prosecution’s case looks like it is evaporating.
I do agree that Pistorius’s own account shows him behaving recklessly. I do see things that don’t quite fit with both versions offered.