Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

BIB
You're doing exactly the same as Masipa did, albeit from different motivations.

You can cite the Mtsweni judgment if you feel it justifies your p.o.v but do remember that Mtsweni has been cited countless times by other judges who have actually concluded the opposite based on Mtsweni: decided it DOES infer guilt:
drawing an adverse inference from the appellant’s false denials.
Misapplication and misinterpretation.


We can all quote judgments – there’s a little more to being a judge than that. Hence my emoticon inserts of her furiously looking up precedents to allow her to ignore the other evidence and sweep it under the carpet!
:ignore:
:sweep::lookingitup:

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. You quoted the sentence, gave Masipa as the source (which she isn't) and then put emoticons suggesting that we should ignore it as another silly thing Masipa said, as I understood it.

 

[cottonweaver]

Here we go again, Judge Greenland on "schoolboy errors":

"All of the supporters of the Court’s decision have relied heavily on a claimed entitlement of the Court to accept Oscar’s version as being “reasonably and possibly true” because there is much Superior Court law that says that this is the correct approach in [B]appropriate instances[/B].
What they have also done is to make the jump and, in effect, apply this approach as being correct in this case with virtually no support why this should be so, except to insist that “as it is in our law, the court was entitled to, and within its rights, to apply the law in Oscar’s favour”.

And that is really the problem here. Was the Court right to simply accept that Oscar’s story was “reasonably, possibly true”??
The answer is No, in my respectful opinion, and quite an emphatic No.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Problem-with-the-Oscar-Pistorius-Judgment-For-Dummies-20140928

 

[aftermath]

So as you like that sort of thing, as it infers faux objectivity and confers legitimacy, here’s one commonly cited and which she should have been citing on circumstantial evidence:

‘A number of circumstances, each individually very slight, may so tally with and confirm each other as to leave no room for doubt of the fact which they tend to
establish. . . . Not to speak of greater numbers, even two articles of circumstantial
evidence, though each taken by itself weigh but as a feather, join them together, you
will find them pressing on a delinquent with the weight of a mill-stone. . . ’. Best on Evidence (Tenth Edition)

I guess Masipa thought this was the key bit:
'...may so tally with and confirm each other as to leave no room for doubt..'

So sometimes they may combine and confirm beyond doubt, but then again, other times they may not. Perhaps in this case Masipa found the circumstantial evidence to be more feather, overall, than millstone.?

 

[GR_Turner]

(To avoid long posts – split reply.)

Here’s another the SCA are fond of quoting- yes an English case- as you like to cite precedence you will know that SCA do quote English case law.

“The law does not demand that you should act upon certainties alone ... In our lives, in our acts, in our thoughts we do not deal with certainties; we ought to act upon just and reasonable convictions founded upon just and reasonable grounds .... The law asks for no more and the law demands no less"
Lord Coleridge, in Rex v Dickman 1910 New Castle,UK.

No, I’m not going to cite anymore as it is pointless as said earlier.

I didn't ask you to cite law to me - you chose to do so but without explaining how it is in any way relevant to the facts of the case it is indeed pointless.

 

[aftermath]

..........are you being serious....it's more the reverse if anything, just because someone phones in dosen't mean they heard the screams seconds before.....

Are you being serious? If someone hears noises then phones security, the time of the call places the noises heard before the logged call. If a person hears noises while on the phone, then the time of the call places the sounds heard at the time of the call....

Who claimed anything as specific as 'seconds before'?

 

[GR_Turner]

Here we go again, Judge Greenland on "schoolboy errors":

"All of the supporters of the Court’s decision have relied heavily on a claimed entitlement of the Court to accept Oscar’s version as being “reasonably and possibly true” because there is much Superior Court law that says that this is the correct approach in [B]appropriate instances[/B].
What they have also done is to make the jump and, in effect, apply this approach as being correct in this case with virtually no support why this should be so, except to insist that “as it is in our law, the court was entitled to, and within its rights, to apply the law in Oscar’s favour”.

And that is really the problem here. Was the Court right to simply accept that Oscar’s story was “reasonably, possibly true”??
The answer is No, in my respectful opinion, and quite an emphatic No.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Problem-with-the-Oscar-Pistorius-Judgment-For-Dummies-20140928

He doesn't explain why though does he. This is the problem with Judge Greenland. He's all emotion which comes over well for those that way disposed but he doesn't get down to the nitty gritty.

 

[Colin de France]

Are you being serious? If someone hears noises then phones security, the time of the call places the noises heard before the logged call. If a person hears noises while on the phone, then the time of the call places the sounds heard at the time of the call....

Who claimed anything as specific as 'seconds before'?

.........that may well place the time of the screams before the call but that has no bearing at all on what time the the sreams were heard.......did anyone hear the screams whilst on the phone ?

 

[aftermath]

.........that may well place the time of the screams before the call but that has no bearing at all on what time the the sreams were heard.......did anyone hear the screams whilst on the phone ?

Can't remember but Dr stipp heard a second set of bangs when he was on the phone. Phone data also helps to place the three 'helps'.

 

[Colin de France]

Can't remember but Dr stipp heard a second set of bangs when he was on the phone. Phone data also helps to place the three 'helps'.

.....and i thought you knew ! ....my original post was concerning the times of the screams........oh well .

 

[cottonweaver]

He doesn't explain why though does he. This is the problem with Judge Greenland. He's all emotion which comes over well for those that way disposed but he doesn't get down to the nitty gritty.

Three misrepresentations of the article referred to by J Greenland.

As a retired Zimb judge who is NOT a serving political appointee under Zuma, who is critical of that state he does not need to use legalese in the article, it's colloquial in tone and language. The WHOLE point was to write it for a layperson audience.

Find me all the quotes which demonstrate " he's all emotion" in it.

Doesn't get down to the nitty gritty - do you mean doesn't talk about flip flops or leaning against meranti doors? He gives a step by step run down of OP's testimony.

Maybe re-read and see if his central point still whooshes right over. ( Back to Shapiro again I am afraid and the centrality of the Def's testimony in this case.)

Your disdain amuses me - "those that way disposed" This is a forum not a court of law ( albeit with a couple of provocateurs ) especially with the countless avowals of objectivity.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Problem-with-the-Oscar-Pistorius-Judgment-For-Dummies-20140928

 

[aftermath]

.....and i thought you knew ! ....my original post was concerning the times of the screams........oh well .

Your original post:

......Er.........there's no proof that Pistorius screamed......there's no proof that all the clocks, watches, telephone services etc, had synchronised timing that night......but i think it's fairly safe to say that Reeva screamed out that night, saying that she didn't opens up a can of worms in that the understanding of which go far beyond the capabilities of GR Turner..........'

My point was in response to your comment that there was no proof clocks, watches and phone services were synchronised: they didn't need to be. If phone data times are reliable then a timeline of who heard what and when can be built.

 

[cottonweaver]

I didn't ask you to cite law to me - you chose to do so but without explaining how it is in any way relevant to the facts of the case it is indeed pointless.

Funny but utterly transparent.

wheel it back a page to your original post

You make a specific issue about Masipa citing case law. As you have done countless times thread 61 and 62. As I said, conferring faux legitimacy.

When a response arrives citing case law - you say you don't want it.

 

[Colin de France]

Your original post:

......Er.........there's no proof that Pistorius screamed......there's no proof that all the clocks, watches, telephone services etc, had synchronised timing that night......but i think it's fairly safe to say that Reeva screamed out that night, saying that she didn't opens up a can of worms in that the understanding of which go far beyond the capabilities of GR Turner..........'

My point was in response to your comment that there was no proof clocks, watches and phone services were synchronised: they didn't need to be. If phone data times are reliable then a timeline of who heard what and when can be built.

..........no they can't .......simply because people react differently and at different speeds.......and what people said on the phone happened at a specified time can not be taken exactly because no two clocks or watches would of been synchronised .....unless of course you know different...........

 

[aftermath]

..........no they can't .......simply because people react differently and at different speeds.......and what people said on the phone happened at a specified time can not be taken exactly because no two clocks or watches would of been synchronised .....unless of course you know different...........

We agree that watches etc aren't synchronized? We agree that phone service data would be synchronized with SA timezone? So using what people said they heard/ saw in relation to when a phone was used, a timeline can be built up. No need for reference to clock or watch times at all (unless you want an approximation of a time).who is suggesting any timeline is going to be accurate to the nearest few seconds at all times? What it does do though is whittle down the possibilities of when things happened/were heard...

 

[GR_Turner]

Funny but utterly transparent.

wheel it back a page to your original post

You make a specific issue about Masipa citing case law. As you have done countless times thread 61 and 62. As I said, conferring faux legitimacy.

When a response arrives citing case law - you say you don't want it.

I was referring you to Masipa's judgement and haven't quoted any other bits of law.

 

[GR_Turner]

Three misrepresentations of the article referred to by J Greenland.

As a retired Zimb judge who is NOT a serving political appointee under Zuma, who is critical of that state he does not need to use legalese in the article, it's colloquial in tone and language. The WHOLE point was to write it for a layperson audience.

Find me all the quotes which demonstrate " he's all emotion" in it.

Doesn't get down to the nitty gritty - do you mean doesn't talk about flip flops or leaning against meranti doors? He gives a step by step run down of OP's testimony.

Maybe re-read and see if his central point still whooshes right over. ( Back to Shapiro again I am afraid and the centrality of the Def's testimony in this case.)

Your disdain amuses me - "those that way disposed" This is a forum not a court of law ( albeit with a couple of provocateurs ) especially with the countless avowals of objectivity.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Problem-with-the-Oscar-Pistorius-Judgment-For-Dummies-20140928

He is arguing about DE not DD.

It would be easier to have discussions if posters didn't just ignore the evidence that supports the defense without giving any justification. For example, I'm told that there is no evidence that OP's cries were heard as female screams despite considerable evidence that they may have been. Yet this is just ignored. It's hard to take posters seriously when they just repeat that they believe he's guilty but have, as far as I can see, ignored the defense case.

 

[aftermath]

He is arguing about DE not DD.

It would be easier to have discussions if posters didn't just ignore the evidence that supports the defense without giving any justification. For example, I'm told that there is no evidence that OP's cries were heard as female screams despite considerable evidence that they may have been. Yet this is just ignored. It's hard to take posters seriously when they just repeat that they believe he's guilty but have, as far as I can see, ignored the defense case.

Perhaps the worry is that engaging with and acknowledging parts of the defence case would be tantamount to confirming reasonable doubt?

 

[mirage1]

Yes, I thought about that too. Van Rensberg could have just made a mistake but then the state could have easily shown from the times in the police cars who arrived first and when Botha arrived. They could have called the other police witnesses to say what they saw and did. Then we have van Staden the photographer claiming that he was alone while taking photos but the photos from another photographer were taken at the same time. Things were moved between photos but this wasn't noted on all the photos.

Once again, what does it matter which specific police were at the scene at what specific times, in relation to photo graphs? This is a non sequitur. The photos would have come out exactly the same regardless.

 

[mirage1]

Mrs VdM heard a female crying and her husband said it was OP. This shows that one person mistook a male voice for a female voice that night. If she had not been with her husband she would have reported female crying only.

If one person can be wrong, why does it not follow that the others could be wrong too?

Because the odds of 4 people being wrong decrease dramatically. There is no way 4 people can mistake a man for a female.

 

[mirage1]

I think it's a shame that you find it farcical but if that's your stance, so be it. I was just exploring/speculating (hence the 'what if') how someone could be untruthful in their version and still be innocent of the crime of which they are accused.

It depends what they are lying about. In this case its critical to his story.