Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sherbert said:
Yes, but, even if PPD is rejected on the grounds that OP's response was disproportionate, we remain likely to be stuck with murder of 'the intruder'. As I see it, the only way we will ever get to the intentional murder of Reeva is if Masipa's findings of fact in relation to the screams' evidence are ruled unreliable.

I realise that, after the CH verdict, many would be happy to settle for DE of the intruder, but this will still involve accepting OP's lie that it hadn't dawned on him that Reeva might be in the bathroom.
Click to expand...

That's my view too, I won't be happy with DE of the intruder .. I want the truth of what really happened to be recognised because anything other than that is to completely dismiss the horror of what Reeva experienced that night, as well as dismissing domestic violence against women in general.
 
jay-jay said:
.. just going back to this post .. whilst I think there may be something in that with regard to what they were arguing about (possibly those contracts of Reeva's) I don't really see how the contract was connected to her role in 'Strike Back' because how could she already been on the film set (which she apparently walked off the set .. and in that book even the reason for that seems to be contradictory .. one minute it is because she herself doesn't agree with it and hadn't expected it, and then the next they are saying it is because she was under pressure not to do it because of OP) .. so if she'd already been on the set, filming, and then walked off, then why would she be in the process of drawing up a contract for it .. she would've had the contract before any filming started, surely?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the 'strike back'incident as an example. The contract that he was going through on the night he killed her would have been for upcoming project not 'strike back'. Sorry if I wasn't clear
 
I asked a question months ago about defence lawyers and what they would do if they knew their clients were guilty.
Jj..............kindly answered my question from what she knew/thought about the situation.
Seemingly the defence lawyer is there to ensure their client ( whether they know or think their client is guilty or not) receive a fair trial !.

After reading the last 100 or so posts and knowing what I've seen ( OP video) and heard during the trial ( Roux making smookescreens and telling porkies).
I have to disagree................totally unethical defending a murdering bstrx !!
Wonder what the defence team would do if it was one of theirs ?.
 
44ALLAN said:
I asked a question months ago about defence lawyers and what they would do if they knew their clients were guilty.
Jj..............kindly answered my question from what she knew/thought about the situation.
Seemingly the defence lawyer is there to ensure their client ( whether they know or think their client is guilty or not) receive a fair trial !.

After reading the last 100 or so posts and knowing what I've seen ( OP video) and heard during the trial ( Roux making smookescreens and telling porkies).
I have to disagree................totally unethical defending a murdering bstrx !!
Wonder what the defence team would do if it was one of theirs ?.
Click to expand...

On some primal level, I have to agree with you… however… on a reasoned level, I cannot : a structured arbitrational arena based on the presumption of innocence where Prosecution and Defence zealously argue their respective case regardless of their personal feelings seems to be the best way to administer Justice.

Better to acquit 100 guilty men than to convict a single innocent one.

IMO, the failings in OP's case rests neither with the Prosecution nor the Defence, but with the arbitrator and the structure itself.
 
44ALLAN said:
I asked a question months ago about defence lawyers and what they would do if they knew their clients were guilty.
Jj..............kindly answered my question from what she knew/thought about the situation.
Seemingly the defence lawyer is there to ensure their client ( whether they know or think their client is guilty or not) receive a fair trial !.

After reading the last 100 or so posts and knowing what I've seen ( OP video) and heard during the trial ( Roux making smookescreens and telling porkies).
I have to disagree................totally unethical defending a murdering bstrx !!
Wonder what the defence team would do if it was one of theirs ?.
Click to expand...

BBM .. I'm not sure if it's myself or Judgejudi you are referring to there, but what you've said there isn't what I said/meant .. I said that defence lawyers are needed because someone who is innocent needs to be defended (because that does sometimes happen, that the person on trial is innocent). I have also said that, if a defence lawyer defends someone who they know (or believes to be) guilty, then I don't know how they sleep at night. But, even someone who is known/thought to be guilty has to have a fair trial, because otherwise they will end up being able to appeal their verdict/sentence if they didn't receive one .. so yes, I probably did say this at some point along the line, but I didn't intend it to mean quite how you have put it.
 
FromGermany said:
O/T

Both, Reeva and OP are/were in the casting list for "Good Morning America" in 2014 (2 episodes each).
I'm sure, he would have tainted the joy also (like the other of Reeva's career plans).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072506/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5524801/

Oh, I see there too: Leah Skye Malan as Herself (Girlfriend Oscar Pistorius)
Click to expand...

I don't really understand that casting list .. surely that is just a list of people who have either been guests on the programme or who have featured in news items (i.e. they've not even appeared on the programme)?
 
Regardless of whether the accused are defended or not the innocent are still sent to prison with a disgusting proportion.
 
44ALLAN said:
I asked a question months ago about defence lawyers and what they would do if they knew their clients were guilty.
Jj..............kindly answered my question from what she knew/thought about the situation.
Seemingly the defence lawyer is there to ensure their client ( whether they know or think their client is guilty or not) receive a fair trial !.

After reading the last 100 or so posts and knowing what I've seen ( OP video) and heard during the trial ( Roux making smokescreens and telling porkies).
I have to disagree................totally unethical defending a murdering bstrx !!
Wonder what the defence team would do if it was one of theirs ?.
Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:
On some primal level, I have to agree with you… however… on a reasoned level, I cannot : a structured arbitrational arena based on the presumption of innocence where Prosecution and Defence zealously argue their respective case regardless of their personal feelings seems to be the best way to administer Justice.

Better to acquit 100 guilty men than to convict a single innocent one.IMO, the failings in OP's case rests neither with the Prosecution nor the Defence, but with the arbitrator and the structure itself.
Click to expand...

jay-jay said:
BBM .. I'm not sure if it's myself or Judgejudi you are referring to there, but what you've said there isn't what I said/meant .. I said that defence lawyers are needed because someone who is innocent needs to be defended (because that does sometimes happen, that the person on trial is innocent). I have also said that, if a defence lawyer defends someone who they know (or believes to be) guilty, then I don't know how they sleep at night. But, even someone who is known/thought to be guilty has to have a fair trial, because otherwise they will end up being able to appeal their verdict/sentence if they didn't receive one .. so yes, I probably did say this at some point along the line, but I didn't intend it to mean quite how you have put it.
Click to expand...

Yes Allan, I did say that it was the duty of defence counsel, if they believed their client was guilty, to ensure their client got a fair trial. In light of the debate on this I’ll expand a bit further.

The fundamental duty of a criminal defence advocate is to zealously represent his client within the bounds of the law. He has a duty to his client to fearlessly raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his client’s case to the best of his skill and diligence. But, as an officer of the Court concerned in the administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client’s wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests.

He may advise his client in strong terms that he is unlikely to escape conviction and that a plea of guilty is generally regarded by the court as a mitigating factor to the extent that the client is viewed by the court as co-operating in the criminal justice process. He’ll strive to see that his client isn't punished excessively.

The advocate-client relationship is two-way. If a client lies to his counsel, counsel isn’t under some holy obligation to ignore the lie and continue trying to get his client off without punishment. Even if he did apparently commit the crime, he is still entitled to the best advocacy available to him, because there may be mitigating circumstances not warranting the maximum sentence.

Counsel will represent his client as best he can, even if he hates the guy. Even if he thinks the guy is guilty, he doesn't know the guy is guilty - there's a difference. If the client tells him he's innocent, then as far as counsel is concerned, he's innocent. Counsel doesn't have to believe him. It doesn't matter what counsel personally believes. He's being paid to do a job and he can't let his personal feelings get in the way.

AJ, (little history lesson here) :) This is known as Blackstone's formulation or ratio and actually goes back to the days of Abraham. The principle is that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". This was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.'

JJ, I truly believe everyone is entitled to legal representation, guilty or not. Centuries ago, accused people had no representation and didn't even have the right to defend themselves. Consequently huge numbers of people were sentenced to death, years of imprisonment or torture just because someone accused them of something. In those days the majority of people were illiterate. These are some of the main reasons why the criminal justice system started evolving. I know what a compassionate person you are so I'm sure you'll understand what I'm saying.

I have a very strong opinion on Roux and the rest of the DT and, to use your words, I don't know how they sleep at night either.
 
Judgejudi said:
Yes Allan, I did say that it was the duty of defence counsel, if they believed their client was guilty, to ensure their client got a fair trial. In light of the debate on this I’ll expand a bit further.

The fundamental duty of a criminal defence advocate is to zealously represent his client within the bounds of the law. He has a duty to his client to fearlessly raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his client’s case to the best of his skill and diligence. But, as an officer of the Court concerned in the administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client’s wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests.

He may advise his client in strong terms that he is unlikely to escape conviction and that a plea of guilty is generally regarded by the court as a mitigating factor to the extent that the client is viewed by the court as co-operating in the criminal justice process. He’ll strive to see that his client isn't punished excessively.

The advocate-client relationship is two-way. If a client lies to his counsel, counsel isn’t under some holy obligation to ignore the lie and continue trying to get his client off without punishment. Even if he did apparently commit the crime, he is still entitled to the best advocacy available to him, because there may be mitigating circumstances not warranting the maximum sentence.

Counsel will represent his client as best he can, even if he hates the guy. Even if he thinks the guy is guilty, he doesn't know the guy is guilty - there's a difference. If the client tells him he's innocent, then as far as counsel is concerned, he's innocent. Counsel doesn't have to believe him. It doesn't matter what counsel personally believes. He's being paid to do a job and he can't let his personal feelings get in the way.

AJ, (little history lesson here) :) This is known as Blackstone's formulation or ratio and actually goes back to the days of Abraham. The principle is that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". This was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.'

JJ, I truly believe everyone is entitled to legal representation, guilty or not. Centuries ago, accused people had no representation and didn't even have the right to defend themselves. Consequently huge numbers of people were sentenced to death, years of imprisonment or torture just because someone accused them of something. In those days the majority of people were illiterate. These are some of the main reasons why the criminal justice system started evolving. I know what a compassionate person you are so I'm sure you'll understand what I'm saying.

I have a very strong opinion on Roux and the rest of the DT and, to use your words, I don't know how they sleep at night either.
Click to expand...

Great post (history lesson and all) !!

Just the BiB struck me as incorrect… Defence attorneys have a duty to the Court and must uphold the standards of their profession… and this line can become fuzzy when opposed to their duty to their clients… BUT I do not see how they have a duty to the public ??… that duty is the domain of the prosecution is it not ?
 
jay-jay said:
I don't really understand that casting list .. surely that is just a list of people who have either been guests on the programme or who have featured in news items (i.e. they've not even appeared on the programme)?
Click to expand...

I thought, you would help me! :) I also don't understand all that. Was it planned for the next year (2014) and didn't happen because poor Reeva murdered, killer OP on trial/in jail, gf Leah already "out"?

Btw:
Sorry, I didn't notice my double-post. :blushing:
 
jay-jay said:
BBM .. I'm not sure if it's myself or Judgejudi you are referring to there, but what you've said there isn't what I said/meant .. I said that defence lawyers are needed because someone who is innocent needs to be defended (because that does sometimes happen, that the person on trial is innocent). I have also said that, if a defence lawyer defends someone who they know (or believes to be) guilty, then I don't know how they sleep at night. But, even someone who is known/thought to be guilty has to have a fair trial, because otherwise they will end up being able to appeal their verdict/sentence if they didn't receive one .. so yes, I probably did say this at some point along the line, but I didn't intend it to mean quite how you have put it.
Click to expand...

Sorry j-j it was Judgejudi who answered my query:)

My whole point was...............Roux and the defence team 'MUST' have known he is as guilty as sin.
They were the ones helping and advising him on his many versions throughout the 18 month period.
It's ludicrous to say they were just there to ensure he got a fair trial.................they were there to help him twist the facts and confuse as many issues as possible IMO with the end result of getting a murderer off scot free.

How can that possibly be classed as ethical behaviour !
I simply can't see it in this case after seeing all the evidence.............Photo 55 nailed him bang to rights for starters !!

edit.
Just read your excellent reply Judgejudi many thanks.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...eview-of-the-sporting-year-2014-part-two.html

Paul Hayward's review of the sporting year 2014: part two

Reeva Steenkamp was killed by Oscar Pistorius on Valentine’s Day 2013, and in September this year the Olympic and Paralympic ‘Blade Runner’ was found guilty of culpable homicide after a trial that gripped the world. Steenkamp’s death was the real tragedy, not the five-year sentence for Pistorius or the loss of his sporting lustre: meaningless, by comparison.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-never-loved-reeva-4658607

June said: “I don’t understand their relationship at all.”

When asked if Pistorius loved Reeva she said: “No. I think she was just a trophy.”

While she wanted answers from the man dubbed Bladerunner she said: “I don’t know I would be too keen to go to the jail.”

“But I want him to see what he has taken from us a beautiful girl - what he is responsible for and our lives are devastated.
 
AJ_DS said:
Great post (history lesson and all) !!

Just the BiB struck me as incorrect… Defence attorneys have a duty to the Court and must uphold the standards of their profession… and this line can become fuzzy when opposed to their duty to their clients… BUT I do not see how they have a duty to the public ??… that duty is the domain of the prosecution is it not ?
Click to expand...

The ethics of the legal profession require it to do what is right by the law, their clients, their colleagues and the community. These ethics apply to all members of the profession.

As officers of the court, lawyers have a fundamental duty to encourage public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession. They have a primary duty to the community to ensure they do nothing to jeopardise that confidence together with a responsibility to ensure access to justice is maintained for all people.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/british-mum-claims-daughters-killing-4551160

British mum claims daughter's killing in South Africa has chilling echoes of Oscar Pistorius case

British-born Lauren’s life was *savagely cut short in the same town in which double-amputee Pistorius blasted Reeva with a pistol.

And according to Lauren’s grieving mother Marilyn, both women have since been failed by South Africa’s justice *system when confronted by wealth and power.

Lauren, 25, had been partying with her boyfriend Chad Khan and a friend, Liesel Schoonwinkel.

But when they *returned to the cottage of Khan’s influential *parents in Hercules, west of Pretoria, an *argument broke out.

Marilyn believes Khan, also 25, feared his relationship with Lauren was *coming to an end and flew into a *jealous rage.

He is alleged to have strangled Lauren with a dish cloth before *stabbing Liesel in the chest and neck with a knife. Fortunately Liesel survived.

What happened next made Lauren’s family angry.


Marilyn told the Sunday People: “Every time I see a picture of Reeva I am *reminded of my Lauren.

“Both girls were *always smiling and had a sparkle in their eye.

“Like us, Reeva’s family haven’t had real justice.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-threatened-london-2012-4246667

Oscar Pistorius threatened London 2012 withdrawal unless ex-girlfriend he cheated on flew out to support him

In a flurry of calls, emails and texts from London – sometimes 30 a day – he begged Samantha Taylor, 20, to join him.

In one message from the Olympic Village, Pistorius, 27, even said: “I am sorry for being such a *advertiser censored** up.”

He fumed, pleaded and sobbed down the phone to her at her home in South Africa.

Samantha described his behaviour during the Games as “a mess”. She had noticed a dramatic change in him from the moment he began his final training for the Olympics.


“He often cried just before a race while on the phone to me, and when he got up to get awards I could see he was sad. He also put his glasses on when he was on TV because he cried a lot.”

The couple had broken up just before he flew to London after Samantha caught him cheating with a Russian model.

Sam said: “He felt frustrated. He wasn’t getting through to me and I wasn’t giving him a second chance.

“I think he is so used to people running after him and forgiving him time and time again, which is exactly what I had done in the past. But I was just so hurt I didn’t have it in my heart to do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 270 (members: 82, guests: 188)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
188
Total visitors
270
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,003
Messages
18,248,433
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top