Search results

Pistorian *advertiser censored*.

bbm - and they were, that was the point I was making.

I thought he was saying to Masipa: you should give us 10yrs and a nearly-dolus-eventualis.... the evidence with the ricochet foresight puts your verdict on shaky ground. But you can still legally and morally make up for it now by qualifying how grossly negligent it was. How can there be such a...

Emotions, grief etc are VERY different to remorse for the crime. All of that, even if genuine, is irrelevant because... ...OP denied the crime of culp hom, and was found to have lied to the court about it. That he 'accepts it now' is convenient.

I have a big problem with Roux talking about the trial and charges already being a moral punishment. OP totally denied responsibility for culp hom, and was the one found to have lied to and deceived the court on the fundamental aspect of why he fired the shots and what his intentions were. To...

I do not like the JubJub argument from Roux one bit. Jub Jub's crime was negligent killing, and this is addressed by the sentence. The crime of intentional street racing is 'ancillary'. OP's crime is negligent killing, and this should be addressed by the sentence. OP's negligence is even...

For an appeal of the sentence, I think any points scored would be useful to be on record. We shouldn't give up just yet, there's a longer game to be played here.

I wonder if Nel will return with the supposed fact in the report that "he accepts he was negligent". This fact simply cannot be true, as her own evidence confirms (OP only told her he 'respects' the court's finding - he made no mention of accepting it or putting a new version to her.) The...

What?! He accepts he was negligent!! That means he now accepts it was not involuntary action. Looking forward to cross-examination.

I'm getting sick now of these defence experts saying he has accepted responsibility. He has not accepted responsibility for his crime. He pleaded not guilty and denied criminal responsibility (for culpable homicide also). He attempted a defence of involuntary action. He was found...

Even his hair is a lie!

I couldn't guarantee that, in my frightful state, I could stop myself killing him in "putative putative self-defence". (I killed him because I mistakenly believed that he mistakenly believed I was a threat and I knew how that ended last time)

I thought she was gonna ask OP to stand up there and then, and ask him if he preferred to mop the floor or do the weeds...

Catching up here... In my view, Masipa had a legal duty to correct social worker Maringa, put the true finding of the court to Maringa (that OP intentionally fired the shots) and ask if he withdraws his recommendation.

I was watching the live video stream of the first session (will have to catch up the rest later today). The big story for me: Nel is not pandering to the court or changing tack. This is a man who is furious, sticking with what he feels is right and speaking up for the victim.

His psychologist keeps admitting that he was looking at media coverage of the trial inc 24h tv channel and reported back to her, so he lied to the court about that?

I don’t think so. Yes, Britslaw didn’t explicitly say direct intention to harm. But it is clearly implied, with bells on, if you care to read the whole post properly and carefully. It’s the only way for the post to make any sense. According to your interpretation: "few if any get in their...

Judi, it is a misprint in the article. Dolus eventualis means legal intention/foresight/indirect intention. It does not mean direct intention. The article goes on to explain on what ground the conviction was overturned: the pair had no foresight of the fatal accident due to being high on drugs...

The error in law did not affect the hearing of evidence, and appeal courts re-determine and newly determine findings of fact all the time without recourse to a retrial.

You make a lot of assertions here: -You say it is trite law that murder dolus eventualis requires direct intention to harm. -You say the court in OP’s case made a finding of fact that he did not intend to harm anybody.* -You say it was on this ground that the court said in OP’s case it...