Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[Sherbert]

As far as I can tell, Judge Masipa found that Oscar's story was improbable, but reasonably possibly true. Although I'm no fan of hers, by any means, I can see that it's a tricky test to get right because, to my mind, something that is improbable is possibly true, but not reasonably possibly true.

Zulman JA in S v V 2000 (1) SACR 453 (SCA), at paragraph 3(i) stated:

‘It is trite that there is no obligation upon an accused person, where the State bears the onus, “to convince the court”. If his version is reasonably possibly true he is entitled to his acquittal even though his explanation is improbable. A court is not entitled to convict unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. It is permissible to look at the probabilities of the case to determine whether the accused’s version is reasonably possibly true but whether one subjectively believes him is not the test. As pointed out in many judgments of this Court and other courts the test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the accused’s evidence may be true.’

http://http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAECGHC/2010/18.html

Any thoughts?

 

[04009margaret]

Vote away people:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ompete-rio-2016-paralympics#start-of-comments

Voted no

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Here you go folks, straight from the Judge's mouth ... how to kill someone and have a good chance of getting away with murder.

“If the accused, for example, had woken in the middle of the night and in darkness saw a silhouette hovering next to his bed and had, in a panic, grabbed his firearm and shot at that figure only to find that it was the deceased, his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps excusable”.

I still can't believe she said this. How can any sane Judge come out with a comment like that. I'm finding it more than a little troubling that the legal fraternity haven't said a word about it. I bet in private they're saying plenty.

If Pistorius had killed Reeva like Masipa's example, it probably would never have gone to trial. :banghead:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Vote away people:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ompete-rio-2016-paralympics#start-of-comments

Voted 74% NO so far.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I'm feeling utterly exhausted and I've got a headache from all of this. I'm off to bed. See you all tomorrow. :countsheep:

I'm so glad we have Websleuths and each other to vent our dissatisfaction about the verdict. :grouphug:


I get so angry, makes me want to go out for a drive and shoot a gun through the roof of my car. Joking, joking I don't have a sunroof.








I don't have a gun.

 

[Fuskier]

Thank you 04009Margaret for this link:

http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/201...judicial-review-after-oscar-pistorius-ruling/

SACP Calls For Judicial Review After Oscar Pistorius Ruling
by: Natalie Simon, September 15, 2014.

The South African Communist Party (SACP) has warned that Judge Thokozile Masipa’s ruling in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius could be a serious setback in violence and abuse against women in South Africa... “It may set a new, and dangerous precedent'...
The SACP called on the South African Law Review Commission to undertake a comprehensive review ... with the aim of determining whether there is a need to overhaul legislation, investigation and legal practice in cases of intimate partner violence and murder...

The party noted the need for a fundamental transformation of South Africa’s legal system. The SACP said the Pistorius case shows that in the present legal environment, the amount of justice one receives is directly related to the amount of money one has access to...

 

[eimajjjj]

As far as I can tell, Judge Masipa found that Oscar's story was improbable, but reasonably possibly true. Although I'm no fan of hers, by any means, I can see that it's a tricky test to get right because, to my mind, something that is improbable is possibly true, but not reasonably possibly true.

Zulman JA in S v V 2000 (1) SACR 453 (SCA), at paragraph 3(i) stated:

‘It is trite that there is no obligation upon an accused person, where the State bears the onus, “to convince the court”. If his version is reasonably possibly true he is entitled to his acquittal even though his explanation is improbable. A court is not entitled to convict unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. It is permissible to look at the probabilities of the case to determine whether the accused’s version is reasonably possibly true but whether one subjectively believes him is not the test. As pointed out in many judgments of this Court and other courts the test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the accused’s evidence may be true.’

http://http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAECGHC/2010/18.html

Any thoughts?

My thoughts are that his version is not only improbable but isn't reasonably possibly true.

And this isn't because it's an absurd story, but because there is a bucketload of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that would make is completely impossible to be true. It doesn't even make it to the subjectivity test.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Can someone tell me what to expect Oct. 13th (unless that too is delayed like everything else in this farce of a trial). We we see a parade of family and mental health people etc. getting up to say OP should not be in prison? And from the Prosecution will her family be able to get up and say what they think? like here in US? Will OP be given yet another chance to beg for mercy? It should be a real show but just wondering what to expect. And how long with the judge take to decide this? Given I believe she knows today what she will do and has given every signal of no prison it should be quick I think. Thanks for any info on this.

The court has adjourned until 13 October, when the defence and prosecution will make further arguments before sentencing. Both sides could call witnesses to substantiate their arguments, and Pistorius himself could be called back to the stand. The judge Thokozile Masipa will have pre-sentencing documents drawn up, for which various parties will be consulted, including probation and correctional supervision officers.

Masipa has wide discretion over the sentence. Pistorius could face a fine, a suspended sentence, correctional supervision and community service or up to 15 years in prison.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/oscar-pistorius-verdict-what-next

There is mention of Shrien Dewani's case coming up next month, so the DPP will be under increased scrutiny. Good!!

Good point about impact statements turaj, surely Mr and Mrs Steenkamp and family can have their say in the courtroom before OP is sentenced, supposedly this helps the judge decide on the sentence, but as its been going, she's probably already made up her mind. A fine or suspended sentence!!!!!!!!! :gaah:

 

[Susza]

Vote away people:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ompete-rio-2016-paralympics#start-of-comments

No chance, they already employed somebody who hits the yes-button 24/7

 

[Susza]

I'm feeling utterly exhausted and I've got a headache from all of this. I'm off to bed. See you all tomorrow. :countsheep:

Sleep well, Judge. I only hope you're not in Scotland.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

As far as I can tell, Judge Masipa found that Oscar's story was improbable, but reasonably possibly true. Although I'm no fan of hers, by any means, I can see that it's a tricky test to get right because, to my mind, something that is improbable is possibly true, but not reasonably possibly true.

Zulman JA in S v V 2000 (1) SACR 453 (SCA), at paragraph 3(i) stated:

‘It is trite that there is no obligation upon an accused person, where the State bears the onus, “to convince the court”. If his version is reasonably possibly true he is entitled to his acquittal even though his explanation is improbable. A court is not entitled to convict unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. It is permissible to look at the probabilities of the case to determine whether the accused’s version is reasonably possibly true but whether one subjectively believes him is not the test. As pointed out in many judgments of this Court and other courts the test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the accused’s evidence may be true.’

http://http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAECGHC/2010/18.html

Any thoughts?

My thoughts on this sherbert is this, all well and good if there were no witnesses, Reeva was a mute and OP's half baked story actually made sense. I'm beginning to believe he could have said anything, and it would have been believed!

If OP hadn't damaged the toilet door and there weren't any bullet holes visible in the toilet, he could have dropped Reeva on the bed and simply gave Masipa's stupid example, he saw a dark silhouette hovering over his bed and shot her!!!! Outrageous!

 

[akp]

My thoughts are that his version is not only improbable but isn't reasonably possibly true.

And this isn't because it's an absurd story, but because there is a bucketload of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence that would make is completely impossible to be true. It doesn't even make it to the subjectivity test.

Also because he didn't have a single version. His versions evolved, from bail plea, to plea document, to cross examination of State witnesses (e.g. screams like a girl), reaching a climax during his own cross examination! Surely, being the only survivor and the only other person present at the scene who also happened to shot her to death, there was a bigger onus on him to present a coherent account of events.

 

[RosieC]

Oscar verdict could be overturned – expert

"Prosecutor Gerrie Nel will only be able to appeal at the sentencing of Pistorius, if he intends to appeal."

http://citizen.co.za/243043/oscar-verdict-overturned-expert/

OSCAR PISTORIUS VERDICT A DONE DEAL. THIS IS A 'MUST READ': http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/gen/oscar-verdict-a-done-deal/ CPA APPEAL MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE - AT ALL. NOT EVEN IF HE IS GIVEN A NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCE.

Do any South African criminal law experts know if evidence of incompetent reasoning by judge on matters of fact and law can be grounds for review or re-trial? (God forbid the latter.)

 

[sleuth-d-]

The judgement in writing:
http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/140915OPJudgment.pdf

"In respect of count 4 the accused made
an admission that at all times relevant to the count he had not been
issued with a license to possess .38 calibre rounds of ammunition."

guilty then?
oh no, not guilty... !

 

[geevee]

My thoughts on this sherbert is this, all well and good if there were no witnesses, Reeva was a mute and OP's half baked story actually made sense. I'm beginning to believe he could have said anything, and it would have been believed!

If OP hadn't damaged the toilet door and there weren't any bullet holes visible in the toilet, he could have dropped Reeva on the bed and simply gave Masipa's stupid example, he saw a dark silhouette hovering over his bed and shot her!!!! Outrageous!

She wasn't only mute but also deaf as she was apparently opening the bathroom window just as Oscar was closing the sliding glass doors, according to the judge.

 

[jay-jay]

Also because he didn't have a single version. His versions evolved, from bail plea, to plea document, to cross examination of State witnesses (e.g. screams like a girl), reaching a climax during his own cross examination! Surely, being the only survivor and the only other person present at the scene who also happened to shot her to death, there was a bigger onus on him to present a coherent account of events.

But apparently some believe it all to be true because he 'stuck to his core story' the whole way through :facepalm: .. well of course he did! The only 'core' to his story was his quickly made up lie about thinking Reeva was an intruder, everything else about his story shifted about like the wind!

 

[sleuth-d-]

RSBM

directly after this she says:

"I pause to state that this assertion is inconsistent with that of someone who shot without thinking. I shall revert to this later in my judgement. "

It's all very confusing.

yet another one of those 'i shall revert to this later' comments...
did she revert to it later?

 

[Mr Fossil]

yet another one of those 'i shall revert to this later' comments...
did she revert to it later?

No, she picked up that trick from Roux

 

[eimajjjj]

Yes, does anyone else have a problem understanding 1) where or if she reverted back to this comment of 'if I wanted to kill id aim higher' showing more conscious thought at the time and 2) how exactly DOES that comment imply he was thinking more at time, surely it implies the opposite?

Or is she saying he chose to shoot at a low level to incapacitate not kill in which case she's pretty much spoon feeding him a serious "get out of jail free card" for the sentencing phase.

Imagine that:

Masipa - "because you said that you would have to have had aimed higher if you wanted to kill, it shows that you were consciously thinking...consciously thinking that you didn't want to kill the intruder, only incapacitate them which shows mercy on your behalf"

OP - "er, yeah, that's right.."

 

[sleuth-d-]

Marius Du Toit, former South African state prosecutor, magistrate and now a criminal defence lawyer has been interviewed on RN Breakfast today and he is of the view that Oscar's disability won't be taken into account during sentencing. What will be evaluated is the degree of negligence exhibited by Oscar in the killing of Reeva. His opinion is that it is severe and that it is very likely that Oscar will be given a custodial sentence. He also said that he should have been found guilty of dolus eventualis.

abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/oscar-pistorius-ruling-comes-under-criticism/5743140

bbm
and we all know what happened there.
talking about what should happen seems futile, in the light of what has happened.