Since this MEDIA STATEMENT has been placed in the public domain, a public response is in order. I wonder, is this statement from Oscar's defence counsel addressed to the media, the public, or indirectly to the state? Or all three?As a member of the public, and a conscientious citizen of society following this matter, and someone who contributes to the media machine, I am disturbed by what seems to be mischievous timing of this 'leak'.
The case is about to be finalised, the defence has recently indicated there are half a handful of witnesses left to call (please, no more 'expert witnesses') and let's face it, the defence has been a mess. It's been replete with inconsistencies, and your own experts contradicting one another, besides the accused himself and vice versa. In short, it hasn't been pretty.
However, if successful in this application, these failures in the courtroom - made by defence - will effectively be 'struck from the record'. This benefits the defence at a time when the defence, to a lay person, appears to be in a less than strong position.
Given the vagaries and selective use of obtuse words, this 'impression' of mischievous opportunism, is reinforced. Can you respond to this?
As such, given the above background and rationale, I, as a citizen of South Africa and a member of the public, will query these uncertainties in your statement in a step by step manner. You are of course at your liberty to respond or not respond.Your original Statement is colored green for reason's of clarity. Red highlights my concerns, queries and uncertainties, and you are kindly required to furnish specific factual answers that address these serious questions, as a matter of urgency.
Your commique commences as follows, and I quote:
Statement/Press Release?
Video footage aired by Australian broadcaster >>>Hang on, so they air it despite your threat of legal action...couldn't be much of a threat the, could it...exactly what did you threaten them with and now that they have gone ahead, what action EXACTLY will you be taking against them, if any. Will you let us know?
by
Brian Webber, Ramsay Webber Inc.
06 July 2014 - you released this on a Sunday, I knew about this Saturday already. Ok, no biggie)
In October 2013, the Defence Team engaged the services of The Evidence Room, A US-based company specialising in forensic animation. >>>thanks for acknowledging this at the outset. In layman's terms, you asked an animation (production company, someone who makes content iow) to create content on your behalf.
The company was engaged to visually map (you mean re-enact right?) the events on the night (the scene of killing of Reeva Steenkamp on 14 February, 2013) of the accident (still referring to it as an 'accident'?). As part of this process, certain video footage was filmed (yes, got that). The “visual mapping” was for trial preparation only and was not intended to be used for any other purpose. (like, to be sold at a later stage for bucks, if and when needed, or even strategically?)
It has now emerged (total surprise?) that an Australian broadcaster has obtained some of this footage from The Evidence Room and has just gone to air with it. >>>obtained how?
We wish to make it very clear that the material that has been aired was obtained illegally (okay but you're not making it 'very clear', I can help you draft these sort of notices in future if you like, if clarity if the goal. So can you explain specifically how this material was 'obtained illegally'? And are we talking speeding ticket illegally or we'll-sue-you-for-a million-bucks illegally?) and in breach of the non-disclosure agreement (oh so it was sold to be used at a certain date...and breach is about...TIMING?)with The Evidence Room.
Its usage also constitutes a breach of privilege as this material was produced for trial purposes on the instructions of a commissioner (who is this commissioner guy anyway? It's not Oom Arnold by any chance), and the ownership of the copyright vests in the commissioner. (wow so this is about copyright violation, that's all? For something you made, and wanted aired, just not (?) specifically when it did.) No permission for the disclosure thereof has been given. (Come now, are you absolutely sure about that?)
For the family, the airing of this footage constitutes a staggering breach of trust and an invasion of the family’s privacy. (but the family are the actors...were the family forced to film themselves re-enacting or did they actually pay someone from the USA to bring cameras and 'investigate'? And let's be fair...if we are going to talk about staggering breaches of trust, one might ask Oscar - your client - why he shot his girlfriend to death. Isn't that a bigger breach, more worthy of addressing?)
It has come to our attention (how did you find out exactly, and while we're here, exactly when were you informed) that Channel 7 purchased this footage unlawfully.(for how much much, and how much did the the Pistorius family profit from this transaction, directly or indirectly) In addition, during our engagement with Channel 7, we received an undertaking that they would not air any of the material before the end of the trial.
(Ooooooooh...so at the end of this cleverly worded
- ENDS -(Er, no, I think this is just the beginning of your Road to an Appeal. FYIBrian Webber, Ramsay Webber Inc. I've already investigated this option - which we can also call a 'trick' or 'technique' - before you pulled it. Ja, that's also in the public domain. I suggest you read it here in order to appreciate how onto your asses I am.)
PS. Please note the conventional meaning for BS in this case is unilaterally altered, for reasons of convenience. For the purposes of this statement, BS should be seen to represent Broad Spectrum.
I've also speculated on a motive (here's some additional reading on that as well) and a method, maybe you should check it out so long. Gerrie, please assist ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment