Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

[cottonweaver]

Nothing more than I did not take into account any other reviews would have been scheduled for that day. I was assuming that this was a board meeting that had been arranged extra to the normal 4 monthly meetings, ie especially to deal with OP's case (and possibly include others at the same time). I am so used to seeing OP get preferential treatment.

I haven't compared the HoA of the two camps but on a first read I confess to thinking the Prosecution Heads were rather rambling and contained way too much Fact rather than Law in their arguments and felt it could be viewed as time wasting by the 5 judges. I thought the Defence HoA were better written though I don't agree with what they say. On a quick scan my impression was that Roux et al attempt to justify the unjustifiable but the document was a more 'professional read'. I will go back and read them sometime this week.

I am afraid I am lily livered with respect to the Appeal. Although I have no doubt OP is guilty, I am very unsure that it is going to go anywhere and, as always, I hope I am completely wrong.

BIB Yes that's funny and very easily done. I think he's used to it himself !( But don't think we're quite brainwashed yet.)
But as regards Standers, Fresco, hangers-on etc etc it seems everyone else accepted this too. Must have a kind of hypnotising effect, plus the reciprocal effects of what's in it for them, reflected glory, a famous friend etc. Strange how a boy who can grow up instilled by his Mum that he is no different etc regardless of disability can become to feel he is so different, unique based on celebrity, power & wealth.

I also agree that I was very surprised after having to listen to so many hours of Roux back then, that he is perfectly capable of stringing to together concise, clear sentences! But I guess he saves the rambling , wearing down for the State's witnesses on cross and can manage simplicity when he needs to get his message across. ( I know he is well known for wearing down and sure that's the job he's paid for. )

State's seem to me more honest in admission of weaknesses and I found less instances that I had to double check with Masipa's rubiks cube . With Roux's there were a lot of - no State aren't arguing that and Masipa didn't actually say that. State's def more complex, sophisticated in terms of legal background, harder to read, syntax off etc.

They are on the background of SA law and how it developed - meanwhile Roux cites Kelly Phelps. ( She was the legal analyst for CNN, MA qualified law lecturer..... and incidentally was Lithgow's gripe AFAIK)
( Does her research hold sway at SCA level? Suppose it depends which august (or not) members are selected to hear this. )

In fact if I say her name loud enough he might even post again! LOL

When you get round to reading them next week, do post, Jitty might even come back on and put us straight/help us out !

 

[cottonweaver]

Here's Ms Phelps talking about the trial, summing up

https://supportforoscar.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/kelly-phelps-interview-transcript/

Interesting she slags off all the other legal commentators that appeared carte Blanche or did paid interviews in press etc. She must have done all hers, esp CNN, for free.
There's always a minority willing to suck up that kind of .......

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here's Ms Phelps talking about the trial, summing up

https://supportforoscar.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/kelly-phelps-interview-transcript/

Interesting she slags off all the other legal commentators that appeared carte Blanche or did paid interviews in press etc. She must have done all hers, esp CNN, for free.
There's always a minority willing to suck up that kind of .......

I have no time for her. She does tend to distort the story to make headlines. Does she really think people who watched the trial really were swayed by newspaper storiesabout a cricket bat etc? Somewhat disingenuous methinks.

With respect to DE, I think there are two schools of thought by legal eagles. Both feel they are correct in their interpretation and both give good reasons. I don't think the law is clear enough and here lies my concern.

Whilst the Prosecution and Prof. Grant are adamant that OP should be charged with DE, and I can see why, equally bright lawyers feel that Masipa's verdict was correct but that she relied on incorrect reasoning to make her judgement. I understand that this may mean that her judgement cannot be challenged because the Prosecution cannot appeal facts.

The following three articles seem well reasoned, IMO, although I am troubled by what they mean. After hearing all the evidence and listening to OP’s poor testimony, my opinion is that he is guilty and deserves a verdict of DE but I have to accept that it just may not happen because of current SA law.

http://thelawthinker.com/judge-masipa-got-it-right-oscar-pistorius-and-the-intention-to-kill/

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/09/18/why-oscar-isn-t-guilty-of-murder-dolus-eventualis

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-09-12-judge-masipa-was-right-on-dolus-and-murder/#.VBp3fPNIQTM.twitter

 

[lithgow1]

RSBM: They are on the background of SA law and how it developed - meanwhile Roux cites Kelly Phelps. ( She was the legal analyst for CNN, MA qualified law lecturer..... and incidentally was Lithgow's gripe AFAIK)
( Does her research hold sway at SCA level? Suppose it depends which august (or not) members are selected to hear this. )

In fact if I say her name loud enough he might even post again! LOL

Yes, you got me with the mention of her name! I got to the point where I used to look fwd to seeing her CNN commentary just to see how she and Robyn Curnow could spin things OP`s way. She even gave Roger Dixon a pass mark when every other commentator was wincing at his inept (though nicely typed) performance.

Actually I have been off enjoying a holiday for the past few weeks so have caught up with the comments and news just now. Things seem to have gone rather quiet, so perhaps others are holidaying too. If so, I hope their`s was as good as mine. But with the appeal looming I guess it will heat up again.

 

[cottonweaver]

I have no time for her. She does tend to distort the story to make headlines. Does she really think people who watched the trial really were swayed by newspaper storiesabout a cricket bat etc? Somewhat disingenuous methinks.

With respect to DE, I think there are two schools of thought by legal eagles. Both feel they are correct in their interpretation and both give good reasons. I don't think the law is clear enough and here lies my concern.

Whilst the Prosecution and Prof. Grant are adamant that OP should be charged with DE, and I can see why, equally bright lawyers feel that Masipa's verdict was correct but that she relied on incorrect reasoning to make her judgement. I understand that this may mean that her judgement cannot be challenged because the Prosecution cannot appeal facts.

The following three articles seem well reasoned, IMO, although I am troubled by what they mean. After hearing all the evidence and listening to OP’s poor testimony, my opinion is that he is guilty and deserves a verdict of DE but I have to accept that it just may not happen because of current SA law.
]

RSBM

Yes a big battle ahead for both teams. Potentially of some significance legally eg overcoming Seekoei. I have read those articles in the past and I think they are useful and naturally Grant's who explains how they are incorrect but I agree, none of us here are more knowledgeable than any of these authors.
The right to appeal was still a big win for Prosecution and Masipa, who a few here admire, also agreed with Nel, that SCA could agree with him. Hence Roux failed to block.
What appear to be questions of fact may not actually be so, plus of course the issue of her misapplication of law to the facts.
SCA have to take Masipa on the form of the judgment itself and majority of us agree it's weak due to the contradictions and non-sequiturs in it.

I as a non-legal, ( ie. for what it is worth), think State's comments on Masipa's approach to evidence was convincing and much more convincing than Roux's argument on that. I wonder what on earth the assessors were doing as they were meant to support with factual elements of the case.

Would think date for hearing will be confirmed soon - guessing last week of Nov - so like Lithgow book your holiday now!:thinking:

The SCA only sits for 9 more days before they break and resume on Nov 1st. ( As posted before, final "term" sits Nov 1st - 30th, resuming Feb 2016) so I would have thought the "Registrar" (or whoever is responsible) would be "timetabling" the November hearing date very shortly, (once the President Judge (?) selects the judges & their own availability) as they would need to next inform Def & State teams in good time, as they also have their own scheduled commitments to juggle?

T'would be unlikely they said our "case load is too heavy" to hear this appeal in Nov 2015! As you said before though - nothing surprises any more.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes, you got me with the mention of her name! I got to the point where I used to look fwd to seeing her CNN commentary just to see how she and Robyn Curnow could spin things OP`s way. She even gave Roger Dixon a pass mark when every other commentator was wincing at his inept (though nicely typed) performance.

Actually I have been off enjoying a holiday for the past few weeks so have caught up with the comments and news just now. Things seem to have gone rather quiet, so perhaps others are holidaying too. If so, I hope their`s was as good as mine. But with the appeal looming I guess it will heat up again.

Glad you have been absent for all the right reasons and that it was a good one.

Yes "I used my eyes" has become a favourite retort for me so I thank Dixon for that.

Yes Phelps - I knew you had set up a mobile alert for the mention of her name!
I haven't read any of Phelp's scholarly articles - the main Heads was enough.

Yes been rather quiet considering 2 relatively big events of the week - the State's Heads and his non-release.
But I think a few are venting on the Support4Ozzie websites instead so that might explain it. ( Joke)

 

[cottonweaver]

No idea how they have got Nov 20th for Appeal Hearing date on this site but it came up when I googled it. Can't see how they know and no-one else does. Sceptical but here is link:

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp?fref=nf

You need to scroll down to the photo of Roux and OP together and it says there 20 Nov?!! Strange

(Anyway , if you look, top prize for best caption as to what Roux is shouting at OP!)

 

[Mr Fossil]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan
BREAKING: #OscarPistorius Appeal will be heard on 3 November

Appeal Court judges hearing #OscarPistorius appeal: SCA President Lex Mpathi, N Z Mhlantla, Steven Majiedt, Eric Leach, Elizabeth Baartman

#OscarPistorius parole review set for almost a month before state appeals against his murder acquittal @eNCA

David Dadic ‏@DavidDadic
OP's appeal set down for 3rd November, judgment should about a month later. Question is will OP be in the Kgosi nativity play this year?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Here are 4 of the 5 Judges, the 4th being the SCA President

 

[JudgeJudi]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan · 1m1 minute ago

It's now looking increasingly likely that #OscarPistorius will be behind bars when state appeals his murder acquittal @eNCA

 

[JudgeJudi]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan · 54m54 minutes ago

#OscarPistorius appeal Acting Judge Baartman is a fisherman's daughter who started her career as a prosecutor.

And here's a photo of the 5th Judge, Elizabeth Baartman

 

[Interested Bystander]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan · 54m54 minutes ago

#OscarPistorius appeal Acting Judge Baartman is a fisherman's daughter who started her career as a prosecutor.

And here's a photo of the 5th Judge, Elizabeth Baartman

I have been delving into their "work experience" LOL. This judge was a divorce lawyer and a lawyer with the Asset Forfeiture Unit before applying to become a judge in 2009.

She is known to prefer non custodial sentences. The following case which she dealt with is interesting, given the verdict and sentence.

Judge Elizabeth Baartman sentencedMarchallino Franzenburg, 23, to a five-year suspended sentence but ordered thathe be placed under house arrest for the next two years for the murder of29-year-old police Constable Brandon Mapoe in June 2013.
Mapoe was off duty at the time, but wascarrying his service pistol. The two men got into an argument over a woman’scellphone number at a home in Tafelsig. Both men were intoxicated andFranzenburg then used Mapoe’s own firearm to shoot him dead.
Franzenburg was found guilty of culpablehomicide while his co-accused, Octavia Witbooi, 25, was acquitted earlier thisyear.
The judge also ordered Franzenburg tocomplete 16 hours of community service every month.
The fact that the 23-year-old was a first time offender and is young were mitigating factors in the sentence.

 

[cottonweaver]

Here are 4 of the 5 Judges, the 4th being the SCA President

Bit disappointed - not the ones I was hoping for.

 

[cottonweaver]

I have been delving into their "work experience" LOL. ]

Me too, IB.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Me too, IB.

You may remember me posting that it seemed their were very few criminal cases that got to the Supreme Court. Mostly they seemed Commercial. I would have thought it might be easy to get a bit rusty in criminal law if one hasn't practiced or judged it for decades.

I have had a look at Nonkosi Mhlantia judgements and they seem to be anything but criminal cases, in the sense of being murder cases. I know they all covered the same type of law degree but in most cases it looks as though that was 30-40 years ago. The one thing I do think is that wisdom generally comes with age so I have written them off entirely This is a list of her Reported Judgements.

 

[cottonweaver]

You may remember me posting that it seemed their were very few criminal cases that got to the Supreme Court. Mostly they seemed Commercial. I would have thought it might be easy to get a bit rusty in criminal law if one hasn't practiced or judged it for decades.

RSBM.
Yes - what with law on dolus ev which has variously been descried as "controversial" and "woeful" and Seekoie hurdle etc.

As for not many crim cases - A question of finances I suppose, not available to most criminals.

Yes, I was looking for those with reps as great "legal minds" or had served in cases against the State, earlier appointments and a few other criteria.
But "transformational politics" is everything now so I suppose the composition is appropriate.

Anyway, i had a look at your 3 article links again yesterday and I didn't feel perturbed by the contents. Too long winded to post here and now.

 

[cottonweaver]

re. Baartman

http://mg.co.za/article/2009-07-21-aspirant-judge-wins-battle-with-npa

 

[Interested Bystander]

RSBM.
Yes - what with law on dolus ev which has variously been descried as "controversial" and "woeful" and Seekoie hurdle etc.

As for not many crim cases - A question of finances I suppose, not available to most criminals.

Yes, I was looking for those with reps as great "legal minds" or had served in cases against the State, earlier appointments and a few other criteria.
But "transformational politics" is everything now so I suppose the composition is appropriate.

Anyway, i had a look at your 3 article links again yesterday and I didn't feel perturbed by the contents. Too long winded to post here and now.

BIB


That gives me some hope. I think I am getting trial weary. These days, it doesn't take much to make me think he is going to get away with murder. However, at no point since the trial have I ever thought he was not guilty. If he loses this appeal, he almost certainly will appeal to the Constitutional Court. This could go on for years but I don't think I shall be following it. If he is allowed to remain free I am sure it won't be too long before he is in trouble again.

 

[cottonweaver]

BIB


That gives me some hope. I think I am getting trial weary. These days, it doesn't take much to make me think he is going to get away with murder. However, at no point since the trial have I ever thought he was not guilty. If he loses this appeal, he almost certainly will appeal to the Constitutional Court. This could go on for years but I don't think I shall be following it. If he is allowed to remain free I am sure it won't be too long before he is in trouble again.

BIB - Ditto.
So, some kind of conclusion ( "good or bad") by Christmas..... a perfect NY resolution!

 

[JudgeJudi]

If this is true, I'm really surprised. I thought it would be 2 full days. Barry Roux will not be happy.