Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[soozieqtips]

At no point did she say he was an unreliable witness.

Are you still nit picking because today didn't go as you predicted? Masipa said OP was a dishonest and poor witness. That pretty much means he was an unreliable witness.

 

[lithgow1]

Interview with legal expert Brenda Wardle. (at 2:30 of video)

https://youtu.be/FPk3a3knyA4

I like how at the end of that interview the legal expert says she suspects the judgement might be sooner than two to three weeks because:

'One could gauge from the questions that the judges were posing that somehow they are convinced that there was a miscarriage of justice in this matter'.

 

[mrjitty]

Well, lawyers predicted the appeal would be rather dry, however, I found it far more exciting than most of the trial.

To be fair - I never would have predicted such a level of fireworks. Normally its not like this!

However when it does happen, there is nothing quite so awesome as when a panel of Appeal Judges pile on!

I am still not positive the state will get the result however.

It's the job of the justices to ask the hard questions of Roux. Did he deal with them? Not so well probably. The weakness of Roux's case remains the poor technical quality of Masipa's judgeent.

Obviously the judges had made up their minds subject to oral argument as they had been prepared to hand down their decision this afternoon. My take on today's proceedings is that the State has succeeded and the judges merely want to discuss whether he goes back to the High Court for sentencing on DE or whether a retrial is justified. I think they'll go for the former.

I wonder if Roux is now discussing with OP whether he wants to carry on to the Constitutional Court in the event of losing to the State.

I'd love to know what OP, the family and Pistorians will make of today's proceedings, not forgetting Kelly Phelps and Robyn Curnow.

mrjitty said a long time ago that Nel put everything that was needed to secure a murder conviction before the Court. The problem was that Masipa just wasn't competent, and it was more than obvious that the SCA judges felt the same way. I actually wasn't prepared for how strident these judges were. They were clearly most unimpressed with the way Masipa completely overlooked Chris Mangena's testimony.

And finally, finally we can say these judges know and said that Her Name Was Reeva Steenkamp and mentioned her by name a number of times today.

I think as a minimum we will see the Supreme Court deliver a legal tongue lashing for Masipa - as it is critical to maintain the integrity of the law

I still would not be surprised if they tear down the judgement, but find some way to avoid changing the result much.

 

[Jake18]

Interview with legal expert Brenda Wardle. (at 2:30 of video)

https://youtu.be/FPk3a3knyA4

Well, she was pretty convinced the SCA would rule in favour of the prosecution. Any legal commentators who don't think that?

 

[sleuth-d-]

.......for me i haven't changed my mind that he fired into the WC knowing she was in there but not with the intention to kill.......i think the best way out of this is to send him down for murder and leave it up to him for a further appeal, it's the only way the truth will come out.....whatever the truth may be.....

firing into that toilet without an intention to kill - not sure how that works?
if there had been clear indication that he knew reeva was in that toilet it would have been dd on day one.

 

[mrjitty]

Good summation. It was fascinating wasn't it, and more to the point than so much of the trial. Roux's tactics did not serve him so well in this setting. Thanks (!) for reminding me about Ms Phelps. I will go check out CNN to see if she has chimed in.

Roux's problem (which we saw on leave to appeal) is he only has one argument.

It was a decision of fact and right or wrong - thats final - this is his Alamo.

What he can't work with - is the technical errors on the face of the judgement.

I know some people are of the opinion that Masipa held PPD, but the fact that it is so unclear is evidence in itself of a bad legal/technical error.

So there are risks to him in paddling too much in those waters

 

[lithgow1]

Snipped from your post mrjitty. I don't get this bit below. If the SCA tear down the judgement how can they then let it stand without it making it appear they are complicit in that poor judgement. Wouldn't they need to find another way to then arrive at her ultimate conclusion. I guess what I am asking in layman's terms is how could you deliver a tongue lashing on a judge`s decision making without then rectifying the error/s that judge made.

I think as a minimum we will see the Supreme Court deliver a legal tongue lashing for Masipa - as it is critical to maintain the integrity of the law

I still would not be surprised if they tear down the judgement, but find some way to avoid changing the result much.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Chriselda Lewis
‏@Chriseldalewis
#OscarAppeal JUST IN: Pistorius Family has issued a new statement. They say it would be inappropriate to comment currently. #sabcnews

EWN Reporter ‏@ewnreporter 5 Std.Vor 5 Stunden
#OscarPistorius family spokesperson Anneliese Burgess is also in court today. BB

 

[soozieqtips]

I like how at the end of that interview the legal expert says she suspects the judgement might be sooner than two to three weeks because:

'One could gauge from the questions that the judges were posing that somehow they are convinced that there was a miscarriage of justice in this matter'.

It was all over so fast but with so many salient points being aired. The law is the law. The identity of the person behind the door was irrelevant. OP fired 4 shots using expanding bullets into a very restricted space knowing there was a human being behind the door. As someone who was a keen shooter and who passed his firearms test - there is simply no way in hell that he couldn't have foreseen his actions had the possibility (however slight) of killing the person behind the door. Masipa got it wrong as so many legal experts explained after she handed down the verdict. Tough for the OP supporters that Roux was left floundering after such an easy ride with Masipa.

 

[Jake18]

To be fair - I never would have predicted such a level of fireworks. Normally its not like this!

However when it does happen, there is nothing quite so awesome as when a panel of Appeal Judges pile on!

I am still not positive the state will get the result however.

It's the job of the justices to ask the hard questions of Roux. Did he deal with them? Not so well probably. The weakness of Roux's case remains the poor technical quality of Masipa's judgeent.





I think as a minimum we will see the Supreme Court deliver a legal tongue lashing for Masipa - as it is critical to maintain the integrity of the law

I still would not be surprised if they tear down the judgement, but find some way to avoid changing the result much.

I've got to say Mrjitty that you've always maintained that the 4 shots into the toilet were the heart of the case and OP's "state of mind" was not the point, even in the face of some heated opposition on here. It does seem that the SCA have a similar mindset to you. I hope you're wrong about the result not necessarily changing though!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

EWN Reporter ‏@ewnreporter 3 Std.Vor 3 Stunden
#OscarPistorius Leach reading case law to Roux showing that if the court misdirects itself it is in fact a question of law. BB

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry BatemanVerifizierter Account ‏@barrybateman 5 Std.Vor 5 Stunden
#OscarPistorius Majiedt suggests to Nel that Seekooi is simply bad law. Things have changed drastically since then. Nel agrees. BB

 

[soozieqtips]

If OP does end up back in jail for murder - at least he's had a nice little holiday in his Uncle's mansion in the meantime.

 

[cottonweaver]

IT'S ONLY LOADING HALF A %^*$£ PAGE AGAIN for me so I have to open 3 pages and read the top halves and forget the bottom lot of posts, so that's why am finding it hard to reply or thank people. If I try 5 time I might get a whole page.....

Going try to do in one post instead

Personally cottonweaver I'd give yourself a break unless you want to do it. I'd rather hear your thoughts on how you think it went. The news24 link below has a good summary for anyone just catching up.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...e-appeals-Oscar-Pistorius-conviction-20151103

TBH Lithgow I need to read through what I typed up and refresh myself on what happened already!

Short answer to your q is at bottom.

I can say that I really enjoyed it , I thought it was going to be dry and ponderous, but it was quick-fire, stimulating and they used layperson language. So I found it riveting - much more so than that trial. They were totally unpompous, refreshingly direct.
Funny parts where Leach and Roux are amused as R won't admit where masipa messed up re chest height :Leach "do you think its right" "R replies – thats the court finding, not mine, I cannot say, chuckle "(professional ethics ) and where Mjedt says it's all very well Roux to cite that case precedence that says we can't change conviction and must order a re-trial, but "That case may have been wrong". Roux – "I couldn't possibly say", .M chuckles

It gave me more confidence about the quality of the judges at this level. So I kind of feel satisfied already, if you get my meaning. If all of them were at the level of Mthlantha, I'm sorry, but with respect I would be very disatisfied.... thankfully not the case.

I hate to say it but I thought Roux did a good job., he met the fight head-on as best he could even though he twisted and manipulated the trial evidence once again eg. rapid succession shots, Mangena only said stumps, . He didn't convince me but he was thinking on his feet and more articulate than usual eg. when the judges said no there is no evidence that OP felt genuine danger, Roux countered "so why did he shoot into a door at 3am if he didn't genuinely believe there was an intruder then"?
BUT when they look at that transcript back they will, I am sure, see the error in Roux's own logic then as OP says he also shot involuntarily.

Glad to say he did bad job on the re-trial stuff from his HofA which was, (as i said back in August) , the biggest "barrel of sophistry" AKA BS ever. So I got some real satisfaction at them knocking that out of the park and continually saying - "no, explain it again.... with respect, no that's not the case...." etc.

I enjoyed the caustic comments about masipa's judgement and that reinforced the view that the SCA don't hold back on criticising fellow professionals. Thought Majedt was coming across as a real law reformer. Was totally surprised that they got so stuck into the factual findings and the implausibility of the story.

I am optimistic but current concerns are these:
-Are they ready to change the law by their decision?.As dadic said -"I have said (as have many cleverer minds than me) that if this case is not eventualis then eventualis is no longer a part of our law Dadic"
-They do not have the full record which they are going to go back and double check? As per banging on back in last thread about Vorster and no GAD etc. I am hoping Baartman who raised issue about "anxious peeps don't have a license to shoot" will go check the record again because she certainly hadn't spotted it in her pre-read of the record.
- Are they ready to accept genuine belief his life in danger is not a factual finding of Masipa? Is it enough for Nel to reply in his final statement

"Yes if its a fact finding but we still need to deal with PPD, what was the alternative to him shooting? ( eg. escaping) , the court never asked these questions. And you SCA cant argue them cause there is "no version".

( Nel was not very convincing and clear then)

I am very optimistic that the judges think she made errors in law, that she mis-directed herself, didn't even deal with PPD properly, she didn't deal with foreseeability nor intent properly, didn't properly make a factual finding on whether he genuinely believed ( bona fide) his life was in danger and so made him think he was entitled to shoot ( indeed Leach adds " does not know if 12 year old child behind that door or person with sub machine gun")

There were parts I was not clear on between Leach and Roux . However it was great to hear Leach say stuff that we all feel - you can't shoot at a noise and claim PPD, this man was a "shocking witness" his paraphrasing LOL as she never actually used this word, size of bathroom,

Amused me no end to hear the back and forth on the size of the loo and unwillingness of L & M to be railroaded by Roux.

Short answer to your question lithgow: I'm no lawyer ( der!) so my views are baseless, but think it's right we should stick our necks out , who cares if we are wrong as long as they explain it clearly in their written judgment and if they decide in OP's favour, as long as it's rational.....?

Majority verdict in favour of the State .......but if that doesn't happen I won't be as p***ed off about it as I was after the trial.

 

[mrjitty]

Roux seems to have resorted to some pretty weak sauce

Roux maintained that the trial judge was correct to apply the principle of dolus eventualis to the question of whether Steenkamp was in the cubicle, given that the judge had already accepted that Pistorius genuinely believed there was an intruder in the bathroom, and that his girlfriend was still in bed:

 

[K.T]

I've been popping in but oh no I missed the big day. Ugh, duh. OK, I'll go back to page six and start reading to try and see what everyone's been saying to get a gist of the events, hope there's a YouTube link somewhere to the court?

Any kind of serious look at the legal process seems vital in SA, I've loosely followed a couple of other results and they seemed as confusing/head-scratching as Masipa's ruling on the smaller firearm/ware possession charges.

 

[lithgow1]

There you go again trying to personalize things? You think you know my thoughts? You have not even come close.

All I can say is - read the judgement again.

How did today go for Oscar in your opinion? Happy with the way the five SCA judges handled the proceedings? Like the many pertinent questions they asked regarding what OP actually did that night?

 

[cottonweaver]

Interview with legal expert Brenda Wardle. (at 2:30 of video)

https://youtu.be/FPk3a3knyA4

Just be careful on this one, I suggest checking out the controversy about her, on professional level etc. before you take anything as completely valid from BWardle, ie b4 u make up ur own mind on it .
Thanks to Giles for putting link in though, haven't watched it yet myself , just spotted it.

 

[Jake18]

Cottonweaver - that's useful, thanks. Just a quick comment re Baartman and the "anxious people" bit, I didn't necessarily take it that she accepted the whole GAD diagnosis as, of course, it's possible to have anxiety issues but not a full blown anxiety disorder. If anything, I thought it was a further dismissal of Oscar's (supposed) state of mind somehow excusing his shooting through the door 4 times.

 

[Colin de France]

....i'm sure i heard Roux mention the opening toilet door at one moment....which would have been a big error on his part if he did, it would indicate that he's not right up there on the evidence, which is also something i for one would like to see debated in depth in court.....