Latest products
cnn
by：KingKonree
2020-02-24
On February 22, 2013, together with Judge soleda O\'Brien Pistorius, he returned to the main page record point of the transcript --
ETTHIS is a hurried transcript at 08: 00.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Desmond Nair, South Africa\'s chief magistrate: Oscar told Alex that he fell in love with Reva and was not afraid to express.
He explained that Oscar and leva were comfortable with each other and that they were happy when he met them in December 2012.
He further explained that they were always at ease and laughing at each other.
He has never seen them fight or fight.
He knows very well that they love each other very much.
A few times from Alex seeing Reeva, she looks like a happy, lively person and comfortable around the Oscar twins.
Alex also explained that he found Oscar to be a humble, generous and kind person and that the last time he spoke to the applicant was in February 13, 2013.
Of course, for the rest of these proceedings, the applicant used alternately with the defendant, referring to the defendant in court.
At 18: 30 on February 13, 2013, he spoke to the applicant for the last time and asked how Reeva had done.
Justin Nicholas Divaris, 39year-
Old man living in Sandton
He met the applicant Oscar at his car dealer.
Both of them love cars.
They became close friends, went on vacation together, met almost every day, and often talked over the phone.
Justin asked the applicant to be an ambassador for his various business interests because he was an international icon but still down-to-earth and a smart person.
As friendship deepens, they begin to socialize more, and Justin often invites him to social events.
Justin met Reva in last May through his girlfriend Samantha grevinstein and got to know him very well.
They invited Oscar and Reeva to be independent sports day (INAUDIBLE)
On November 2012, the track where the applicant and Reeva met for the first time.
He was praised for introducing the deceased to the applicant in these proceedings.
Justin is well aware that the more time applicants spend with Reeva, the more they love each other.
The applicant invited Reeva to the South African Sports Awards as a friend, and the applicant told Justin Reeva that it was a very good person and that they were very successful.
In December, Reeva and the applicant were on holiday with Justin and Samantha in Cape Town, and after that, the applicant began to introduce the deceased to friends and family.
The applicant told Justin that he would invite Reeva to take a future overseas trip with him, which surprised Justin as Oscar never invited any of his former girlfriends to travel overseas.
On February 13, 2013, Justin invited the applicant to have a boy\'s dinner in Johannesburg.
The applicant had spoken to Reeva and decided to go to Pretoria to spend the night with the deceased.
Samantha graystein, 29year-
Elderly women living in Sandton
She has known Reeva since 2007.
Samantha met the applicant through her boyfriend Justin and found him a polite person
Polite and humble people.
On November 4, 2012, she received a message from Reeva saying that she would join the South African sports award with the Oscar.
The next day, Reeva explained to Samantha that she had a great time with the applicant and that she thought he was a very good person.
In the conversation between Reeva and Samantha, applicants are often the subject of discussion.
After a while, leeva still said that Oscar was an amazing person. he treated her like gold.
Applicants and Reeva were on holiday in Cape Town in December with Justin and Samantha.
They are very happy together.
Reeva often mentions how she is with the applicant and she can see the future with him.
Reeva did mention that the relationship was growing fast, but she still loved him.
On February 13, 2013 Samantha messaged Reva to have her watch a movie with her in Johannesburg, and she said she would come back to her and meet Oscar.
Applicants who called Reeva advised them to stay at their home in Pretoria.
Samantha said the applicant got along well with Reeva and was very accommodating, and the deceased mentioned that she really liked Oscar.
Exhibit E is a carnival of Graham Edward. ph), a 33-year-
An adult male currently living in Port Elizabeth.
The applicant is his first cousin and has a relative relationship through their mother\'s sister.
On February 13, 2013, more than 8: 00 that night, the applicant and Graham exchanged various information on what had happened.
The applicants called the swearing-in around 8: 00 and they mainly talked about the car because they had a common interest.
Graham wanted to bring his new Volkswagen to Pretoria, and Oscar suggested that he should not do so because the risk of such a car was high in a nearby complex.
The applicant told Graham that he had bought a new house in Johannesburg and he went further (AUDIO GAP)
To him, when they meet in December, he will also buy or buy a house.
For this particular expert Graham Edward carnival, things are on track from the discussion in December 2012.
The phone lasted 20 hours and 45 hours.
This is his evidence. Pistorius.
In response, the defense lawyer now called Warrant Officer Hilton Bota, who testified that he was a detective Warrant Officer for the South African police for 24 years.
On February 14, 2013, about 1/4 of the past was at 4: 00 in the morning.
He saw the dead lying at the bottom of the stairs, dead.
She is wearing a black vest and white shorts.
Further bail was opposed, he said, because the applicant would not be tried and he was at risk of running away.
He considered it a serious problem and added that it was possible to impose a sentence of 15 years of life imprisonment.
He further testified that he knew that the defendant was a professional athlete who lived abroad for a period of time and had a house in Italy.
When he arrived, there was a safe box in the kitchen and the defendant\'s lawyer came with a locksmith to open the safe.
They are looking for a document and memory stick with an account number for overseas accounts.
He further testified that if the accused left South Africa, he would not be able to get him back because South Africa had no extradition treaty in every country.
He thought it was a very serious crime, and an unarmed woman was shot three times and the bullet was fired through a closed door and she was not armed.
He added that the applicant had provided the police with a version that he considered to be a thief.
Warrant Officer Hilton Bota listened to the statements of neighbors and witnesses and confirmed that at the crime scene, experts from the ballistic field, photographers, fingerprint experts, blood experts.
He added that after death, a wound was found on the right side of the head, an arm fracture on the right elbow and an injury on the right hip.
There is also a bullet hole on the white trousers. He added that .
38 rounds of ammunition were found and the applicant did not have a permit for.
38 Special revolvers
He indicated that the state intended to charge applicants for possession of ammunition without a license.
He said that, in his experience, when a person goes to a test to obtain a gun permit, one of the questions is about when to shoot and when not to shoot.
He described the scene as two.
Story House, one comes in from the front door and you pass ---
One must pass the deceased to the kitchen on the left on the stairs.
If you go up the stairs, you turn right to the master bedroom.
If you go into the bedroom and turn left, you will see a king bed, bookcase and--
Bookcase on the left side of the bed and sofa.
On the left is a pair of female slippers, which are worn by women.
You go for a walk-
In the Vanity Cabinet area, to the bathroom.
It is about 6 from bedroom to bathroom. 8 meters.
If you turn right into the bathroom you will see the shower and toilet with two bathtubs on the far right
Hand side corner near shower door.
In the bathroom we saw a piece of wood that came from the broken toilet door on the bathroom floor with a cartridge inside.
There are 9mm bullets at the door.
There\'s a gun, a Taurus of 9mm.
On the shower mat in front of the shower door, there are two mobile phones ---
There is an iPhone 4 and an iPhone 5 in the bathroom on the mat.
The size of the bathroom is 2. 55 by 2. 83 meters.
The toilet and shower are on your right, on the opposite wall, the farthest to your right, and as I said, the tub is right next to the shower door.
Measures of the toilet itself 1. 4 by 1.
14 m in diameter.
He also found two other phones, Blackberries, in his bedroom.
He checked all the calls and found that no calls had been made.
The door of the bathroom has two panels and the panel above is broken.
A part was found outside the toilet and a part was found inside.
It seems that someone shot through the door and the key was outside the door.
Four magazines were found.
A cricket stick lies in the bathroom and it is sent for further testing to determine if it is used to enter the toilet.
Experts from the ballistic team told him that the bullets were fired at an angle in the toilet seat.
The shooter should be plus or minus 1.
5 metres from the door, the shooter must stand next to the shower with his back facing the washbasin.
There are three wounds at the entrance.
A bullet hit the wall in the upper right corner of the left.
If a person is on the balcony of this bedroom, he must go through the bed and reach the bathroom through the window of the bathroom.
When he looked down, he saw two dogs. He said that although he was not an expert, he guessed that he was only a bulldog and the other was a bulldog.
This is the ground area under the bedroom.
He also said ballistic experts had confirmed that the bullets were fired down through the angle at the top of the toilet door.
Near the TV area, he found a pack of testosterone with needles and needles.
He got a statement from the neighbor who heard the noise.
He further testified that previous incidents appeared in the media he investigated, one of which was at the arch of Melrose.
It was a shooting incident where the applicant accidentally fired someone else\'s gun in the restaurant and asked the person to take responsibility for him to avoid publicity.
Then, according to his information, the accused was involved in a battle in the Kyalami Daytona incident, and he was so angry that he actually used profanity indicating an attack threat.
The complainant in this matter wishes to file a civil and criminal action against the applicant, sir.
The applicant\'s friend Divaris persuaded the complainant to abandon the case because his sponsor was McClaren, which had a negative impact on his company.
Their lawyer solved the problem. One other, Mr. Mark Deshler (ph)
According to the witness who heard about what happened to Kyalami and tried to determine the applicant\'s situation, the applicant said he would break his leg.
When Officer Botha returned to the scene of a, he testified.
His slippers and supper bags are on the left side of the bed.
On the basis of the possibility of the defendant defending himself, he indicated that it might be true, but it was unlikely because the door had been closed.
He didn\'t know who was in the toilet and didn\'t even call his girlfriend.
He also stated that he had the statement of a witness who stated that between 2: 00 and 3: 00, two people were heard speaking loudly. m.
He also stated that another person testified that,-
Or mentioned in the statement-
He heard gunfire, went to the balcony, saw the lights on at the applicant\'s residence, went back to bed, heard a woman screaming, and then heard two or three more shots. On cross-
During the review, the defense dealt with the State\'s defensive nature (ph)
Arguments and responses to further details.
With respect to the question of whether he did not provide some version, whether the applicant did not provide some version further, the witness concluded by saying that they did say to him that he considered it a thief.
Counsel Roux took the time in his defense argument to elaborate on the statement that the applicant did not provide some version and from his cross
After review, he was able to get it from authorized officer Bota and, in fact, the applicant did say to him that he thought it was a thief and that was indeed equivalent to some version.
He was very angry.
Reviewed the news that he had heard from a ballistic expert that he had shot at the toilet seat from a distance 1. 5 meters.
In fact, he did agree that in the defense version, a shot was fired from the bathroom entrance, and if it was aimed at the toilet from there, it would follow the same trajectory to go to the toilet.
He therefore admitted that the version of the defense was that the applicant opened fire from the bathroom entrance.
He also did not indicate to him that the ballistic statement was issued from 1.
5 m inside the bathroom is not true.
Regarding the question of whether or not the lights were on before or after this shooting incident, he did confirm that the witness statements at his disposal seemed to indicate that, and after he heard the shots, the lights were on. Mr.
Pistorius\'s affidavit shows that he turned the light on after the shooting.
He is working on some issues, who can be heard in the affidavit he holds, and someone is arguing loudly.
Can he say the applicant or the deceased? He couldn\'t.
He was also forced to admit defeat at the crossroads.
The review did not know who was talking and he could not confirm that the voice was sent from the applicant\'s home.
He also noted that his preliminary testimony about the people who heard voices from the applicant\'s home was incorrect and that they lived about 600 metres away.
He admitted that he did not ask the defendant if there were any other mobile phones, but asked the defendant\'s defense.
The defendant told him that the applicant did have a mobile phone and gave him a number in court.
He argued that the autopsy would show that the bladder of the deceased was empty.
He could not deny that and agreed that it would be correct if the defense\'s statement was that she was in the toilet.
He was told that if the deceased went to the toilet while the defendant went to get the fan, he might not have seen her, and he indicated that he did not specifically test this after the defendant filed his affidavit.
He\'s in cross-
Check that the ladder stepladders are not right outside the bathroom window, but further away.
The defense maintains that the defendant, as a prosthetic user, is so vulnerable that he wants to protect himself and his girlfriend. And Mr.
Bota responded, or argued, why would the applicant enter a very dangerous area if his intention was to protect himself and the deceased?
He acknowledged or agreed that there was no sign of an attack at the time he personally attended the autopsy.
He acknowledged the state\'s response to the defense request for more details as part of the state\'s premeditated murder case, which they mentioned (ph)of phone calls.
He then agreed that there was no phone he knew and then changed his version to indicate that it actually meant no phone.
He was told that the applicant was wearing a patch on his shoulder, causing him to sleep on the left side of the bed, where he usually does not sleep, and he indicated that he did not see the patch.
Defense at the crossroads
The review specifically denied that the applicant had a house in Italy, but indicated that the defendant had a dormant account in Brunswick, Carolina.
It is worth mentioning that at this time, the applicant\'s affidavit did not mention supporting his bail application for this dormant account in Carolina.
He was very angry.
Investigation into the Melrose Archph)
, The gun was fired under the table, and when the gun was handed over to him, the gun was passed under the table to the applicant, who insisted it was the applicant who fired the gun.
As for our legal position, it is understood that the author Detois (ph)
In his comments on the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail is described as a contract under which the detained defendant is freely available upon payment, the payment of a secured sum or the guarantee provided by him, in addition, he expressly or implicitly undertakes to comply with the general conditions and specific conditions relating to the release of him.
On the other hand, the state undertakes to respect the liberty of the accused, and if the court deliberately and officially recognizes the defendant\'s right to liberty through bail, only if the state is able to submit convincing facts to the court in support of the cancellation of bail, it will successfully cancel bail. On (INAUDIBLE)
Bail: Practitioner\'s Guide, the third edition of Juta, on the second page, further tracing the origin of the bail process to the 7 th century UK, compared to the early Roman
In Dutch law, the concept of bail is actually unknown.
According to Judge Krekeler, the US constitutional courtv. Dlamini, S. v. Glagla (ph)and others, S. v. Ubel (ph), S. v. Petercult (ph)
1999, p. SSCR 1977, Constitutional Court, in footnote VIII of the third paragraph of the judgment, summarizes the history of bail in South Africa after July 21, as follows: \"Bail, as long as the roots of South Africa can be traced back to Cape Town regulation 1828, this laid the foundation for a man in the country\'s criminal proceedings and made it clear for the first time that a prisoner awaiting trial was released on bail.
Subsequently, the Cape Town regulations became a model for similar regulations in the town and in the two Boolean republics.
Shortly after the war in South Africa, a comprehensive code of criminal procedure was introduced in the Transvaal Colony, Decree No. 1 of 1903, which will be the basis of the first national criminal law, act 31 of 1917 and its successor, Act 56 of 1955.
In 1977, chapter 1977 of the code of criminal procedure promulgated a wide range of provisions relating to bail, which was implemented on July 22.
The Criminal Procedure Act, the 75 th Amendment of 1995 and the 85 th Criminal Procedure Act of 1997 have again made substantive amendments to these provisions.
Since then, further amendments to some provisions have also been affected.
Although bail is primarily prescribed by legislation, the common law principles relating to bail have not been waived.
In some cases, the Criminal Procedure Law is either silent or ambiguous, and our high court performs its obligations and functions by exercising the powers of the common law.
While South Africa\'s transition to a new constitutional exemption and the introduction of the bill of rights, positions relating to bail are in section 25.
Act No. 200 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993.
Eventually, of course, in the first section (f)
Constitution of the Republic of South Korea, 1996.
On June 3, 1999, the Constitutional Court, in many of the cases I mentioned above, said in a summary manner, among other things,-excuse me --
\"None of the provisions of the Constitution constitute any significant obstacle to the application of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act on bail.
Bail is good as an institution. known;
The same is true of its goals and broad standards.
The introduction of the Constitution and the adoption of amendments to Articles 1995 and 1997 of the Criminal Procedure Law, with proper interpretation, provide norms and guidance for the assessment process. \"Section 35.
The constitution 1 recognizes that persons suspected of committing a crime may be arrested and detained, but those arrested have the right to be released under reasonable conditions, if permitted by the interests of the judiciary.
Deciding whether the judicial interest allows such release and determining the appropriate conditions is a work done by the judiciary and in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 60 of the act.
\"While the bail application is a formal court process, it is relatively informal, essentially urgent, and has a unique intermediate purpose that differs from the trial.
The problem is not guilt, but Justice interests related to bail.
\"In determining the interests of justice, the basic work is to determine the relevant situation by using the list of relevant factors against bail set out in paragraph 4 as a guide, as shown in paragraphs 5 to 8 (a)
, And the person granted bail under paragraph 9.
\"With regard to the factors for granting bail and the factors against bail, the list is not exhaustive and the court must consider any other relevant factors.
In seeking to determine the existence of these factors, the court should be as proactive and investigative as possible.
After all the relevant factors have been identified, the court must, in a judicial manner, weigh the pros and cons of bail, taking into account the possibility of using appropriate conditions to minimize possible risks.
\"Where 11th (a)
If involved, the court should be astute in ensuring the right to bail under section 35. 1(f)
The effect of the Constitution has not become illusory because of the effect of paragraph 14, that is, the incidence of burden of proof and the need to produce evidence.
The defendant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to determine special circumstances.
The latter term has no hidden meaning and will be applied in justice.
While the defendant\'s offence may be relevant in the bail application, the relevant evidence should be limited to the central question of whether or not the judicial interest allowed bail on the defendant.
ETTHIS is a hurried transcript at 08: 00.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Desmond Nair, South Africa\'s chief magistrate: Oscar told Alex that he fell in love with Reva and was not afraid to express.
He explained that Oscar and leva were comfortable with each other and that they were happy when he met them in December 2012.
He further explained that they were always at ease and laughing at each other.
He has never seen them fight or fight.
He knows very well that they love each other very much.
A few times from Alex seeing Reeva, she looks like a happy, lively person and comfortable around the Oscar twins.
Alex also explained that he found Oscar to be a humble, generous and kind person and that the last time he spoke to the applicant was in February 13, 2013.
Of course, for the rest of these proceedings, the applicant used alternately with the defendant, referring to the defendant in court.
At 18: 30 on February 13, 2013, he spoke to the applicant for the last time and asked how Reeva had done.
Justin Nicholas Divaris, 39year-
Old man living in Sandton
He met the applicant Oscar at his car dealer.
Both of them love cars.
They became close friends, went on vacation together, met almost every day, and often talked over the phone.
Justin asked the applicant to be an ambassador for his various business interests because he was an international icon but still down-to-earth and a smart person.
As friendship deepens, they begin to socialize more, and Justin often invites him to social events.
Justin met Reva in last May through his girlfriend Samantha grevinstein and got to know him very well.
They invited Oscar and Reeva to be independent sports day (INAUDIBLE)
On November 2012, the track where the applicant and Reeva met for the first time.
He was praised for introducing the deceased to the applicant in these proceedings.
Justin is well aware that the more time applicants spend with Reeva, the more they love each other.
The applicant invited Reeva to the South African Sports Awards as a friend, and the applicant told Justin Reeva that it was a very good person and that they were very successful.
In December, Reeva and the applicant were on holiday with Justin and Samantha in Cape Town, and after that, the applicant began to introduce the deceased to friends and family.
The applicant told Justin that he would invite Reeva to take a future overseas trip with him, which surprised Justin as Oscar never invited any of his former girlfriends to travel overseas.
On February 13, 2013, Justin invited the applicant to have a boy\'s dinner in Johannesburg.
The applicant had spoken to Reeva and decided to go to Pretoria to spend the night with the deceased.
Samantha graystein, 29year-
Elderly women living in Sandton
She has known Reeva since 2007.
Samantha met the applicant through her boyfriend Justin and found him a polite person
Polite and humble people.
On November 4, 2012, she received a message from Reeva saying that she would join the South African sports award with the Oscar.
The next day, Reeva explained to Samantha that she had a great time with the applicant and that she thought he was a very good person.
In the conversation between Reeva and Samantha, applicants are often the subject of discussion.
After a while, leeva still said that Oscar was an amazing person. he treated her like gold.
Applicants and Reeva were on holiday in Cape Town in December with Justin and Samantha.
They are very happy together.
Reeva often mentions how she is with the applicant and she can see the future with him.
Reeva did mention that the relationship was growing fast, but she still loved him.
On February 13, 2013 Samantha messaged Reva to have her watch a movie with her in Johannesburg, and she said she would come back to her and meet Oscar.
Applicants who called Reeva advised them to stay at their home in Pretoria.
Samantha said the applicant got along well with Reeva and was very accommodating, and the deceased mentioned that she really liked Oscar.
Exhibit E is a carnival of Graham Edward. ph), a 33-year-
An adult male currently living in Port Elizabeth.
The applicant is his first cousin and has a relative relationship through their mother\'s sister.
On February 13, 2013, more than 8: 00 that night, the applicant and Graham exchanged various information on what had happened.
The applicants called the swearing-in around 8: 00 and they mainly talked about the car because they had a common interest.
Graham wanted to bring his new Volkswagen to Pretoria, and Oscar suggested that he should not do so because the risk of such a car was high in a nearby complex.
The applicant told Graham that he had bought a new house in Johannesburg and he went further (AUDIO GAP)
To him, when they meet in December, he will also buy or buy a house.
For this particular expert Graham Edward carnival, things are on track from the discussion in December 2012.
The phone lasted 20 hours and 45 hours.
This is his evidence. Pistorius.
In response, the defense lawyer now called Warrant Officer Hilton Bota, who testified that he was a detective Warrant Officer for the South African police for 24 years.
On February 14, 2013, about 1/4 of the past was at 4: 00 in the morning.
He saw the dead lying at the bottom of the stairs, dead.
She is wearing a black vest and white shorts.
Further bail was opposed, he said, because the applicant would not be tried and he was at risk of running away.
He considered it a serious problem and added that it was possible to impose a sentence of 15 years of life imprisonment.
He further testified that he knew that the defendant was a professional athlete who lived abroad for a period of time and had a house in Italy.
When he arrived, there was a safe box in the kitchen and the defendant\'s lawyer came with a locksmith to open the safe.
They are looking for a document and memory stick with an account number for overseas accounts.
He further testified that if the accused left South Africa, he would not be able to get him back because South Africa had no extradition treaty in every country.
He thought it was a very serious crime, and an unarmed woman was shot three times and the bullet was fired through a closed door and she was not armed.
He added that the applicant had provided the police with a version that he considered to be a thief.
Warrant Officer Hilton Bota listened to the statements of neighbors and witnesses and confirmed that at the crime scene, experts from the ballistic field, photographers, fingerprint experts, blood experts.
He added that after death, a wound was found on the right side of the head, an arm fracture on the right elbow and an injury on the right hip.
There is also a bullet hole on the white trousers. He added that .
38 rounds of ammunition were found and the applicant did not have a permit for.
38 Special revolvers
He indicated that the state intended to charge applicants for possession of ammunition without a license.
He said that, in his experience, when a person goes to a test to obtain a gun permit, one of the questions is about when to shoot and when not to shoot.
He described the scene as two.
Story House, one comes in from the front door and you pass ---
One must pass the deceased to the kitchen on the left on the stairs.
If you go up the stairs, you turn right to the master bedroom.
If you go into the bedroom and turn left, you will see a king bed, bookcase and--
Bookcase on the left side of the bed and sofa.
On the left is a pair of female slippers, which are worn by women.
You go for a walk-
In the Vanity Cabinet area, to the bathroom.
It is about 6 from bedroom to bathroom. 8 meters.
If you turn right into the bathroom you will see the shower and toilet with two bathtubs on the far right
Hand side corner near shower door.
In the bathroom we saw a piece of wood that came from the broken toilet door on the bathroom floor with a cartridge inside.
There are 9mm bullets at the door.
There\'s a gun, a Taurus of 9mm.
On the shower mat in front of the shower door, there are two mobile phones ---
There is an iPhone 4 and an iPhone 5 in the bathroom on the mat.
The size of the bathroom is 2. 55 by 2. 83 meters.
The toilet and shower are on your right, on the opposite wall, the farthest to your right, and as I said, the tub is right next to the shower door.
Measures of the toilet itself 1. 4 by 1.
14 m in diameter.
He also found two other phones, Blackberries, in his bedroom.
He checked all the calls and found that no calls had been made.
The door of the bathroom has two panels and the panel above is broken.
A part was found outside the toilet and a part was found inside.
It seems that someone shot through the door and the key was outside the door.
Four magazines were found.
A cricket stick lies in the bathroom and it is sent for further testing to determine if it is used to enter the toilet.
Experts from the ballistic team told him that the bullets were fired at an angle in the toilet seat.
The shooter should be plus or minus 1.
5 metres from the door, the shooter must stand next to the shower with his back facing the washbasin.
There are three wounds at the entrance.
A bullet hit the wall in the upper right corner of the left.
If a person is on the balcony of this bedroom, he must go through the bed and reach the bathroom through the window of the bathroom.
When he looked down, he saw two dogs. He said that although he was not an expert, he guessed that he was only a bulldog and the other was a bulldog.
This is the ground area under the bedroom.
He also said ballistic experts had confirmed that the bullets were fired down through the angle at the top of the toilet door.
Near the TV area, he found a pack of testosterone with needles and needles.
He got a statement from the neighbor who heard the noise.
He further testified that previous incidents appeared in the media he investigated, one of which was at the arch of Melrose.
It was a shooting incident where the applicant accidentally fired someone else\'s gun in the restaurant and asked the person to take responsibility for him to avoid publicity.
Then, according to his information, the accused was involved in a battle in the Kyalami Daytona incident, and he was so angry that he actually used profanity indicating an attack threat.
The complainant in this matter wishes to file a civil and criminal action against the applicant, sir.
The applicant\'s friend Divaris persuaded the complainant to abandon the case because his sponsor was McClaren, which had a negative impact on his company.
Their lawyer solved the problem. One other, Mr. Mark Deshler (ph)
According to the witness who heard about what happened to Kyalami and tried to determine the applicant\'s situation, the applicant said he would break his leg.
When Officer Botha returned to the scene of a, he testified.
His slippers and supper bags are on the left side of the bed.
On the basis of the possibility of the defendant defending himself, he indicated that it might be true, but it was unlikely because the door had been closed.
He didn\'t know who was in the toilet and didn\'t even call his girlfriend.
He also stated that he had the statement of a witness who stated that between 2: 00 and 3: 00, two people were heard speaking loudly. m.
He also stated that another person testified that,-
Or mentioned in the statement-
He heard gunfire, went to the balcony, saw the lights on at the applicant\'s residence, went back to bed, heard a woman screaming, and then heard two or three more shots. On cross-
During the review, the defense dealt with the State\'s defensive nature (ph)
Arguments and responses to further details.
With respect to the question of whether he did not provide some version, whether the applicant did not provide some version further, the witness concluded by saying that they did say to him that he considered it a thief.
Counsel Roux took the time in his defense argument to elaborate on the statement that the applicant did not provide some version and from his cross
After review, he was able to get it from authorized officer Bota and, in fact, the applicant did say to him that he thought it was a thief and that was indeed equivalent to some version.
He was very angry.
Reviewed the news that he had heard from a ballistic expert that he had shot at the toilet seat from a distance 1. 5 meters.
In fact, he did agree that in the defense version, a shot was fired from the bathroom entrance, and if it was aimed at the toilet from there, it would follow the same trajectory to go to the toilet.
He therefore admitted that the version of the defense was that the applicant opened fire from the bathroom entrance.
He also did not indicate to him that the ballistic statement was issued from 1.
5 m inside the bathroom is not true.
Regarding the question of whether or not the lights were on before or after this shooting incident, he did confirm that the witness statements at his disposal seemed to indicate that, and after he heard the shots, the lights were on. Mr.
Pistorius\'s affidavit shows that he turned the light on after the shooting.
He is working on some issues, who can be heard in the affidavit he holds, and someone is arguing loudly.
Can he say the applicant or the deceased? He couldn\'t.
He was also forced to admit defeat at the crossroads.
The review did not know who was talking and he could not confirm that the voice was sent from the applicant\'s home.
He also noted that his preliminary testimony about the people who heard voices from the applicant\'s home was incorrect and that they lived about 600 metres away.
He admitted that he did not ask the defendant if there were any other mobile phones, but asked the defendant\'s defense.
The defendant told him that the applicant did have a mobile phone and gave him a number in court.
He argued that the autopsy would show that the bladder of the deceased was empty.
He could not deny that and agreed that it would be correct if the defense\'s statement was that she was in the toilet.
He was told that if the deceased went to the toilet while the defendant went to get the fan, he might not have seen her, and he indicated that he did not specifically test this after the defendant filed his affidavit.
He\'s in cross-
Check that the ladder stepladders are not right outside the bathroom window, but further away.
The defense maintains that the defendant, as a prosthetic user, is so vulnerable that he wants to protect himself and his girlfriend. And Mr.
Bota responded, or argued, why would the applicant enter a very dangerous area if his intention was to protect himself and the deceased?
He acknowledged or agreed that there was no sign of an attack at the time he personally attended the autopsy.
He acknowledged the state\'s response to the defense request for more details as part of the state\'s premeditated murder case, which they mentioned (ph)of phone calls.
He then agreed that there was no phone he knew and then changed his version to indicate that it actually meant no phone.
He was told that the applicant was wearing a patch on his shoulder, causing him to sleep on the left side of the bed, where he usually does not sleep, and he indicated that he did not see the patch.
Defense at the crossroads
The review specifically denied that the applicant had a house in Italy, but indicated that the defendant had a dormant account in Brunswick, Carolina.
It is worth mentioning that at this time, the applicant\'s affidavit did not mention supporting his bail application for this dormant account in Carolina.
He was very angry.
Investigation into the Melrose Archph)
, The gun was fired under the table, and when the gun was handed over to him, the gun was passed under the table to the applicant, who insisted it was the applicant who fired the gun.
As for our legal position, it is understood that the author Detois (ph)
In his comments on the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail is described as a contract under which the detained defendant is freely available upon payment, the payment of a secured sum or the guarantee provided by him, in addition, he expressly or implicitly undertakes to comply with the general conditions and specific conditions relating to the release of him.
On the other hand, the state undertakes to respect the liberty of the accused, and if the court deliberately and officially recognizes the defendant\'s right to liberty through bail, only if the state is able to submit convincing facts to the court in support of the cancellation of bail, it will successfully cancel bail. On (INAUDIBLE)
Bail: Practitioner\'s Guide, the third edition of Juta, on the second page, further tracing the origin of the bail process to the 7 th century UK, compared to the early Roman
In Dutch law, the concept of bail is actually unknown.
According to Judge Krekeler, the US constitutional courtv. Dlamini, S. v. Glagla (ph)and others, S. v. Ubel (ph), S. v. Petercult (ph)
1999, p. SSCR 1977, Constitutional Court, in footnote VIII of the third paragraph of the judgment, summarizes the history of bail in South Africa after July 21, as follows: \"Bail, as long as the roots of South Africa can be traced back to Cape Town regulation 1828, this laid the foundation for a man in the country\'s criminal proceedings and made it clear for the first time that a prisoner awaiting trial was released on bail.
Subsequently, the Cape Town regulations became a model for similar regulations in the town and in the two Boolean republics.
Shortly after the war in South Africa, a comprehensive code of criminal procedure was introduced in the Transvaal Colony, Decree No. 1 of 1903, which will be the basis of the first national criminal law, act 31 of 1917 and its successor, Act 56 of 1955.
In 1977, chapter 1977 of the code of criminal procedure promulgated a wide range of provisions relating to bail, which was implemented on July 22.
The Criminal Procedure Act, the 75 th Amendment of 1995 and the 85 th Criminal Procedure Act of 1997 have again made substantive amendments to these provisions.
Since then, further amendments to some provisions have also been affected.
Although bail is primarily prescribed by legislation, the common law principles relating to bail have not been waived.
In some cases, the Criminal Procedure Law is either silent or ambiguous, and our high court performs its obligations and functions by exercising the powers of the common law.
While South Africa\'s transition to a new constitutional exemption and the introduction of the bill of rights, positions relating to bail are in section 25.
Act No. 200 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993.
Eventually, of course, in the first section (f)
Constitution of the Republic of South Korea, 1996.
On June 3, 1999, the Constitutional Court, in many of the cases I mentioned above, said in a summary manner, among other things,-excuse me --
\"None of the provisions of the Constitution constitute any significant obstacle to the application of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act on bail.
Bail is good as an institution. known;
The same is true of its goals and broad standards.
The introduction of the Constitution and the adoption of amendments to Articles 1995 and 1997 of the Criminal Procedure Law, with proper interpretation, provide norms and guidance for the assessment process. \"Section 35.
The constitution 1 recognizes that persons suspected of committing a crime may be arrested and detained, but those arrested have the right to be released under reasonable conditions, if permitted by the interests of the judiciary.
Deciding whether the judicial interest allows such release and determining the appropriate conditions is a work done by the judiciary and in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 60 of the act.
\"While the bail application is a formal court process, it is relatively informal, essentially urgent, and has a unique intermediate purpose that differs from the trial.
The problem is not guilt, but Justice interests related to bail.
\"In determining the interests of justice, the basic work is to determine the relevant situation by using the list of relevant factors against bail set out in paragraph 4 as a guide, as shown in paragraphs 5 to 8 (a)
, And the person granted bail under paragraph 9.
\"With regard to the factors for granting bail and the factors against bail, the list is not exhaustive and the court must consider any other relevant factors.
In seeking to determine the existence of these factors, the court should be as proactive and investigative as possible.
After all the relevant factors have been identified, the court must, in a judicial manner, weigh the pros and cons of bail, taking into account the possibility of using appropriate conditions to minimize possible risks.
\"Where 11th (a)
If involved, the court should be astute in ensuring the right to bail under section 35. 1(f)
The effect of the Constitution has not become illusory because of the effect of paragraph 14, that is, the incidence of burden of proof and the need to produce evidence.
The defendant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to determine special circumstances.
The latter term has no hidden meaning and will be applied in justice.
While the defendant\'s offence may be relevant in the bail application, the relevant evidence should be limited to the central question of whether or not the judicial interest allowed bail on the defendant.
Custom message
