-It is said no client is guilty until the money runs out.-
What was the rationale if any at all for making Oscar Pistorius plead not guilty for the first 3 minor charges?
1. THE TASHA’S RESTAURANT – DISCHARGING A FIREARM IN A PUBLIC PLACE!
Advocates Roux & Oldwage why did you not establish that a GLOCK gun could not be discharged even if it falls? It must have someone pulling the trigger for it to go off.
Why therefore advice your client to plead not guilty or did you assume the gun could go off? If so why? Was this oversight or a slip-up?
2. DISCHARGING FIREARM THROUGH THE ROOF OF A MOVING VEHICLE
Senior Counsel on what did you hedge your bets when you would have known that the discharging of a firearm would feature since OP’s friend and former girlfriend would be called to testify. That their testimonies singularly and collectively if called for would corroborate the incident taking place. Thus their evidence becomes direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence anymore, irrespective if there is exists the platform for self-incrimination on their part. It can hardly be argued they would have upfront agreed to nail Oscar thus painting confirming that he discharged a weapon through the roof of the car they travelled in in utter rage for a police officer who pulled them off and annoyed Pistorius.
3. AMMUNITION – POSSESSION
Learned Senior Counsel – You would have known that the ammunition found in Oscar’s safe for which he had no license is a natural violation, which would confirm negligence. Alternatively, did you not know what the SA law states on possession of ammunition?
Even more, you knew your client and his father have no real relationship and the potential existed for Henke Pistorius to refuse to buy into the scheme that the ammo was his. Oscar told the court he does not know who placed it in his safe, but it was his father’s, he also told the court that he has not talked with his father for years. Why counsel and advise him to plead not guilty?
Is it fair to assume your prism of a non-guilty plea was informed by a myopic focus on reducing these charges as insignificant? Yet in the cross examination, which you knew, would come it features and lays bare the ill- advice of either a counsel absorbed in the murder with intent charge or a counsel oblivious to the greater and overall case.
4. MURDER WITH INTEND CHARGE
Even on the main charge, why did they not advice their client that his version is preposterous, highly improbable for the various holes it present. Oscar appears completely un-serviced in advice in the dock; he presents a picture a man in self-defence who had no counsel or a counsel who spent their energy on shining in state witnesses when they never took the time or energy to deal with preparing Oscar. Why did you not let him plead on a lesser charge of culpable homicide?
Your advice and counsel in this instance reminded me of that of an Advocate Dali Mpofu who equally counselled a Malema and some of the Youth League in the ANC initiated disciplinary hearings. Mpofu led evidence in mitigation when mitigation confirms the case, the very case he remained obstinate in resolve that the case was a political one, until the birth of an EFF.
Looking at Oscar Pistorius I cannot help but think you, counsel owes him some serious rebate. Perhaps you equally have given us as public reason to ask for an ethic of defence in service of clients because you knew from day one when you sat across him he will not walk out of this one on the strength of his evolving and changing story line.
A story line that comes perpetually dove-tailed with ‘ I made a mistake’, ‘ I am sorry’, I do not remember’, ‘they lied’, everyone has an interest to see me guilty’, ‘The police contaminated the scene’ and off course ‘my counsel did not do their job though I trust Advocate Barry Roux with my life’.
Then again, what do I know I am a novice in legal matters, yet I am a thinker, and logic dictates that Oscar Pistorius was ill advised in his pleading and not prepared for this cross- examination?
I think I now concur with the words ‘no client is guilty until they run out of money’