[quote author=Snoopster link=topic=88981.msg559486#msg559486 date=1397600258]
In this case it seems he had little choice.
The defence was based purely on Pistorius' version of events. If that version is not before the court then it can't be considered in evidence and it's a straight conviction.
The O.J. case was different. O.J. denied even being at the scene of the crime. So there was never "his version" of anything which he had to tell the court. Then we had the incompetence of the LAPD's investigation which tainted the evidence. So Johnnie never had to put O.J. in the hot seat to raise a reasonable doubt.
[/quote]i still believe that his chances were better by not taking the stand .
No one can withstand an interrogation by even an average lawyer no matter how smart they believe that they are .
My self however , if I should ever be in a situation to be cross examined , my standard line would be " I cant recall" 8)
In this case it seems he had little choice.
The defence was based purely on Pistorius' version of events. If that version is not before the court then it can't be considered in evidence and it's a straight conviction.
The O.J. case was different. O.J. denied even being at the scene of the crime. So there was never "his version" of anything which he had to tell the court. Then we had the incompetence of the LAPD's investigation which tainted the evidence. So Johnnie never had to put O.J. in the hot seat to raise a reasonable doubt.
[/quote]i still believe that his chances were better by not taking the stand .
No one can withstand an interrogation by even an average lawyer no matter how smart they believe that they are .
My self however , if I should ever be in a situation to be cross examined , my standard line would be " I cant recall" 8)
