Australian viewers polled during Channel Seven's Sunday Night show voted that Oscar Pistorius is guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp after they watched him reenact the shooting death for a defense project made by The Evidence Room at Pistorius' uncle's home, according to this tweet from ShaneBell1212 found on Mashable on June 7, 2014.
The defense team of the athlete claims they did not approve the showing of the video and that it was obtained illegally. They had commissioned it to aid in the trial, but never chose to show it, which had the National Post positing why the video was not used to aid the defense in the trial, if it is supportive of Oscar's case.
If Pistorius' defense team had been curious as to what an Australian audience would rule in the murder case, and had allowed its leakage, then Sunday night they got their answer: guilty as charged. But the defense team insists they did not leak the video and Brian Webber, Oscar Pistorius' solicitor said the footage was "obtained illegally and in breach of the nondisclosure agreement," according to the Australian.
For their part, Channel Seven's Sunday Night executive producer Mark Llewellyn had this to say:
The material shown on Sunday Night goes to the heart of both the prosecution and defence [sic] cases, including the account provided by Oscar Pistorius," Llewellyn said, adding "We would not have run the footage if we thought we had obtained it illegally."
According to him, as also reported by the Australian, "The story was run in Australia only and not made available to any other territory."
The "you be the jury poll," according to the Australian, resulted in 53 percent of the Sunday night Australian viewers voting that they think Oscar Pistorius is guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day night 2013. 43 percent of those who watched and were polled voted that they think he is innocent of the crime of murder. But his defense team is hoping that the showing of the video will result in a mistrial in court, hoping the judge will see it as a breach of confidentiality between a criminal client and his defense team due to the video being leaked and shown without his permission.
But the South African judge in this murder trial is just as likely to see this as a possible "testing of the public waters" by the defense, who may have hoped to show the judge that there is public support for an innocent verdict for their client--but who now wish to claim foul that the answer they received makes it look more derogatory for Oscar instead. And this is especially a possibility, since Oscar's lawyer Brian Webber was quoted in Mashable as saying this:
During our engagement with Channel Seven, we received an undertaking that they would not air any of the material before the end of the trial," Pistorius attorney Brian Webber said.
That shows that it was planned that the reenactment shown on Sunday night would eventually be aired on Australia's Channel Seven with the permission of Oscar Pistorius and his defense team. The question now is, was it really meant to be shown following the trial verdict, when they might feel it best served them for an appeal? Or, did they plan initially to show it as a way to confirm a not guilty verdict, if one was received?