This is why I think the prosecution will win because this is what the SCA were focused on. I am pleased they mentioned Mangena's evidence because it was very damning to OP yet Masipa completely disregarded it.
Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~
- Thread starter KateB
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
IL IL-Chicago, BlkMale, 50-65, UP129248, Found in abandoned vehicle, Nov '02- Latest: phantomstrider
- Status
This is why I think the prosecution will win because this is what the SCA were focused on. I am pleased they mentioned Mangena's evidence because it was very damning to OP yet Masipa completely disregarded it.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
If the verdict is overturned and OP is found guilty of murder, he shouldn't be allowed to stay at Uncle's house while his appeal is being sorted out. If it's decided he's a murderer, he should be removed from society immediately. A convicted murderer should not be allowed to live a life of luxury while dragging out an appeal for god knows how long.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
So, he will need several pairs of brown trousers.
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
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...e-appeals-Oscar-Pistorius-conviction-20151103
From the Guardian. It's a bit lengthy so I will post the state summary first, then defence.
The state’s case
South Africa’s supreme court of appeal has heard arguments from state prosecutors that trial judge Thokozile Masipa was wrong when she found Oscar Pistorius not guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the panel of five judges that Masipa had erred in her application of the legal principle of dolus eventualis, and that she was wrong to conclude that Pistorius had not foreseen that firing four shots into a locked door was likely to kill or injure the person behind it.
Masipa further erred in her exclusion of dolus eventualis because she accepted that Pistorius believed Steenkamp was in bed, Nel argued: there was a criminal intent to bring about the demise of whoever was inside the toilet cubicle. (On this point, at least one judge openly agreed.)
(modsnip)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...ius-appeal-state-seeks-murder-conviction-live
The state’s case
South Africa’s supreme court of appeal has heard arguments from state prosecutors that trial judge Thokozile Masipa was wrong when she found Oscar Pistorius not guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the panel of five judges that Masipa had erred in her application of the legal principle of dolus eventualis, and that she was wrong to conclude that Pistorius had not foreseen that firing four shots into a locked door was likely to kill or injure the person behind it.
Masipa further erred in her exclusion of dolus eventualis because she accepted that Pistorius believed Steenkamp was in bed, Nel argued: there was a criminal intent to bring about the demise of whoever was inside the toilet cubicle. (On this point, at least one judge openly agreed.)
(modsnip)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...ius-appeal-state-seeks-murder-conviction-live
And here is the defence one. When it is put down on paper like this it seems that Nel and the state have the stronger argument. Hopefully that is why Roux was heard to say 'I am going to lose'. David Dadic says Uncle Arnold will not be happy with that comment being broadcast. If it makes Uncle Arnold unhappy then that is good by me.
The defence case
Barry Roux, for the defence, said the state’s case rested on issues of fact, rather than points of law, and were therefore not a matter for the supreme court.
But he faced questioning from the judges over Pistorius’ intentions when firing into the tiny cubicle, with Judge Leach telling him:
There was no place to hide in there … If you put four shots through that door you must surely see you will shoot someone.
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:
Why would he just want to murder someone in the toilet, knowing she’s in the bedroom?
The defence insists that Pistorius was scared, vulnerable and on his stumps; his state of mind rules out murder.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...ius-appeal-state-seeks-murder-conviction-live
The defence case
Barry Roux, for the defence, said the state’s case rested on issues of fact, rather than points of law, and were therefore not a matter for the supreme court.
But he faced questioning from the judges over Pistorius’ intentions when firing into the tiny cubicle, with Judge Leach telling him:
There was no place to hide in there … If you put four shots through that door you must surely see you will shoot someone.
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:
Why would he just want to murder someone in the toilet, knowing she’s in the bedroom?
The defence insists that Pistorius was scared, vulnerable and on his stumps; his state of mind rules out murder.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...ius-appeal-state-seeks-murder-conviction-live
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,622
- Reaction score
- 31,380
Well, lawyers predicted the appeal would be rather dry, however, I found it far more exciting than most of the trial. 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 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.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd be interested to know what the OP supporters make of this since they all seemed to think it would be cut and dried and that the SCA would uphold the original verdict. I guess they must have all decided to block out what DE actually means.
As one of the judges said, you can't just give someone with an anxiety disorder licence to kill. And why did Masipa admit OP was a dishonest and unreliable witness and then believe that he thought Reeva was still in bed? Isn't that exactly what a murderer would say?
As one of the judges said, you can't just give someone with an anxiety disorder licence to kill. And why did Masipa admit OP was a dishonest and unreliable witness and then believe that he thought Reeva was still in bed? Isn't that exactly what a murderer would say?
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.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
I think a lot of us feel she manufactured a verdict with the sole purpose of giving him CH because she felt sorry for him.
I agree. It was as though she worked backwards from her preferred verdict and cherry picked the evidence that suited her. And Roux and co knew "remorse" mattered to her and they gave it to her in spades (or buckets!). Wonder if OP is vomiting now?
No worries, he's got his Uncle's hairline so it's just a matter of time until grey won't be the problem.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
At no point did she say he was an unreliable witness.
but in such a very round about way it seems to me.
mentions again today of the screams, lead me back to the emotional comments made by independent female witnesses of screams they will never forget. also mentions of the argument heard by van der merwe, and the judges almost leading nel to have gone further in his appeal towards dd.
D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
eNCAVerifizierter Account ‏@eNCA 2 Std.Vor 2 Stunden
RT @karynmaughan: Baartman: it can't be that the court gives everyone with an anxiety disorder a license to kill #OscarPistorius
RT @karynmaughan: Baartman: it can't be that the court gives everyone with an anxiety disorder a license to kill #OscarPistorius
Is that the only glimmer you can take away from today's proceedings? Justice Leach certainly gave the impression of not believing him. So who do you think 'won'? Are you in disagreement with every legal commentator heard from thus far, that Nel won the day? Of course I have yet to hear Kelly Phelps so there may be a dissenting voice.
- Status