Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[LemonMousse]

Absoloodle, Lemon Mousse! Once again, you've totally nailed it!
Again, thanks for your contributions! [emoji106][emoji106]

[Blush]

Thanks

But I really am only saying what Soozie, Judi, Mr Jitty and all the others have been saying for the past year. I'm just more long-winded about it!

 

[JudgeJudi]

Exactly. That's how I see it too.

My big, big worry is that it might be the case that the SCA find their hands tied by having to honour (reluctantly) the factual findings that she made.

I really, really hope I'm wrong. Not a forlorn hope, because I often am. And I have not yet correctly predicted anything in this trial.....!

I can be wrong too LM. I gave Masipa the benefit of the doubt long after others saw her bias. After a lifetime of being around a court environment, I truly believed that she was bending over backwards to see that he was being afforded every opportunity to regain his composure and hopefully avoid an appeal if she found him guilty of murder.

I'm a glass half full kind of person and all I can say is I hope my cup runneth over by the end of the week.

 

[Trotterly]

Aha! We may be getting somewhere, Trotterly!!!!

You are right. She did think identity was important. You are absolutely, 100% right.

And that's her mistake. Because for DE it is not. It is irrelevant. In this case or any other.

And it's not that I don't like her approach...it's the law that doesn't like it. She misapplied the principles for DE by making identity central. Did you not listen to what every single one of those judges were saying? They made this point over and over.

As have the rest of us on here.

It's simple...think of it like this:

DE relates to cases where killing is not the prime intent. It happens because someone engages in behaviour that could very well kill someone and they don't stop.

So....if killing is not the prime intent, then the identity of the dead person is self-evidently irrelevant.

See?

I understand the DE. The accused cannot hide behind the identity of the victim. That's not what is happening here.

 

[LemonMousse]

I understand the DE. The accused cannot hide behind the identity of the victim. That's not what is happening here.

Good grief.

No.

 

[Trotterly]

Good grief.

No.

No what?

 

[Tortoise]

Exactly. That's how I see it too.

My big, big worry is that it might be the case that the SCA find their hands tied by having to honour (reluctantly) the factual findings that she made.

I really, really hope I'm wrong. Not a forlorn hope, because I often am. And I have not yet correctly predicted anything in this trial.....!

I don't see the factual findings as insurmountable. But then again I am an optimist!

OP murdered while feeling fear? tick
OP murdered while thinking the door is going to open? tick

Neither of these constitutes PPD

OP thought his life was in danger? If he did he didn't act on that thought, he didn't want to shoot, he didn't want to defend himself, if he had he would have aimed higher so he says.

Its about bloody time someone spoke some sense in that country. OP had the audacity to say he thought a dangerous possibly armed tank of an intruder would cower and hide from him in a cupboard sized toilet and that made him believe his life was in danger?? Reeva didn't say a word between getting up and being shot?? He never heard a flush if that's what she was doing and yet the toilet door was open?? It starts with the word bull.

I think the SCA can knock out the factual findings, on the basis that evidence didn't play a part in them, his word is he didn't act on them, and both facts if she wants to call them that were found without considering all the evidence, including Cpt Mangena's, or paying any attention to what happened before he got his gun. That's even without considering her assessment of his credibility as a witness.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I feel cheered up a little that Justice Leach has written up the Appeal verdict but still feel a bit shaky about what it will be.

When Judge Masipa allowed the Appeal she clearly said the verdict only and would not allow an appeal on the sentence. Could one of you lovely legal eagles explain why this can be and could we be looking at a murder verdict but OP already having served the jail part of his sentence?

 

[Trotterly]

I feel cheered up a little that Justice Leach has written up the Appeal verdict but still feel a bit shaky about what it will be.

When Judge Masipa allowed the Appeal she clearly said the verdict only and would not allow an appeal on the sentence. Could one of you lovely legal eagles explain why this can be and could we be looking at a murder verdict but OP already having served the jail part of his sentence?

The sentence for CH cannot be appealed but if the verdict is changed the sentence will have to be redone.

 

[LemonMousse]

No what?

Sorry.

No. You are wrong, in my opinion.

While dealing with DD, she tacitly accepted that he thought he was shooting an intruder (and therefore, not Reeva) and correctly identified an Error in Objecto scenario.

With Error in Objecto, the identity of the victim becomes totally irrelevant. She says that herself.

Having already made that finding and thus declaring that the identity of the victim was irrelevant she then went on and asked the questions pertaining to DE - NOT on the basis that the identity of the victim was irrelevant but on the basis that it was.

And her questions made no logical sense anyway.

Having declared that the identity of the victim was irrelevant she said:

He didn't mean to kill the person behind the door, or anyone else, because he thought Reeva was in bed.

Think about that!

He didn't MEAN to kill the person behind the door - whoever that was - because he thought Reeva was in bed??????

Er no....he was shooting in the first place because he thought Reeva was in bed (apparently). So, how on earth can it possibly make sense that it was also his reason for not wanting to kill?

Bottom line....identity was irrelevant. Masipa made it relevant when she shouldn't have done. This prevented her asking the right questions.

Maybe if she had asked the right questions she'd have arrived at the same ultimate conclusion. I suspect she would have done....but that is not the point.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thank you Trotterly for that. I completely misunderstood what Judge Masipa meant. I noted it was being said that the case would go back to the High Court for sentencing if the verdict was changed and I meant to ask about her comment at that time, but forgot!

 

[atthelake]

When I listened to the live stream of the SC appeal hearing I was so impressed at how fast they got to the point.

I am so looking forward to reading their verdict.

Hopefully we will have a separate thread just for discussion of that document raying: by the end of the week

 

[soozieqtips]

If there's a new verdict, does anyone know if it gets read out before the explanation as to how it was reached? And are OP and Reeva's family told about it just before it's made public? I must say I'm really looking forward to hearing it. Hopefully it won't be as hard to follow as Masipa's judgment!

 

[Tortoise]

If there's a new verdict, does anyone know if it gets read out before the explanation as to how it was reached? And are OP and Reeva's family told about it just before it's made public? I must say I'm really looking forward to hearing it. Hopefully it won't be as hard to follow as Masipa's judgment!

I don't know if they are all the same but the first judgement I opened from Friday's list gives the Order first (which in that case was "The appeal is dismissed") followed by the judgement.

I don't know if I can bear to listen. It'll be like when I was a kid watching Doctor Who, from between the fingers of my hands.

 

[soozieqtips]

I don't know if they are all the same but the first judgement I opened from Friday's list gives the Order first (which in that case was "The appeal is dismissed") followed by the judgement.

I don't know if I can bear to listen. It'll be like when I was a kid watching Doctor Who, from between the fingers of my hands.

Masipa did it the other way round. After admitting that OP was an unreliable and evasive witness, her verdict came as a bit of a surprise. The SCA judges are clearly more clued up than Masipa, and I'm looking forward to learning (in detail!) just how they arrive at their judgment.

 

[lithgow1]

Masipa did it the other way round. After admitting that OP was an unreliable and evasive witness, her verdict came as a bit of a surprise. The SCA judges are clearly more clued up than Masipa, and I'm looking forward to learning (in detail!) just how they arrive at their judgment.

Oh soozieq, haven't you learned yet that you cannot use the word 'unreliable'! A certain porcine poster will soon be along to remind you of that. You can only say 'very poor' and 'evasive' if you are referring to what Masipa said and of course those things, despite the dictionaries of synonyms, do not mean 'unreliable'. Just untruthful, slippery, dishonest etc. Of course if you want to use words like 'unreliable' and 'shocking' then just quote Justice Leach.

I am heading off from Europe to Australia for a couple of months in the sun so no doubt will be in mid air or wandering round and round some airport unless the decision is handed down tomorrow. So, I will look fwd to catching up with all the posts at the other end. Hopefully there will be snorts and grunts and squeals of indignation, from the OP supporter's side.

 

[cottonweaver]

Oh soozieq, haven't you learned yet that you cannot use the word 'unreliable'! A certain porcine poster will soon be along to remind you of that. You can only say 'very poor' and 'evasive' if you are referring to what Masipa said and of course those things, despite the dictionaries of synonyms, do not mean 'unreliable'. Just untruthful, slippery, dishonest etc. Of course if you want to use words like 'unreliable' and 'shocking' then just quote Justice Leach.

I am heading off from Europe to Australia for a couple of months in the sun so no doubt will be in mid air or wandering round and round some airport unless the decision is handed down tomorrow. So, I will look fwd to catching up with all the posts at the other end. Hopefully there will be snorts and grunts and squeals of indignation, from the OP supporter's side.

Bon voyage Lithgow!

I hope you will have disembarked by the time they deliver their judgment.
I am sure there is some fab champagne over there.....:australia::takeoff::drink:

 

[lithgow1]

Bon voyage Lithgow!

I hope you will have disembarked by the time they deliver their judgment.
I am sure there is some fab champagne over there.....:australia::takeoff::drink:

Thank you. There is but we can't call it 'champagne' because of food origin laws. But there will be prawns and beer! And 'sparkling wine'. Despite the gentle needling of my post, I do think both sides would, or should, welcome a clear and easily understood judgement. Personally I would like to see a retrial but doubt that will happen. If it did, I wonder who would defend broke OP? Would Roux reduce his rates or Uncle A continue to cough up? Maybe OP would have to settle for the South African equivalent of Lionel Hutz? At least I can ponder these things while worrying that they will run out of the beef before they get to me!

 

[soozieqtips]

Oh soozieq, haven't you learned yet that you cannot use the word 'unreliable'! A certain porcine poster will soon be along to remind you of that. You can only say 'very poor' and 'evasive' if you are referring to what Masipa said and of course those things, despite the dictionaries of synonyms, do not mean 'unreliable'. Just untruthful, slippery, dishonest etc. Of course if you want to use words like 'unreliable' and 'shocking' then just quote Justice Leach.

I am heading off from Europe to Australia for a couple of months in the sun so no doubt will be in mid air or wandering round and round some airport unless the decision is handed down tomorrow. So, I will look fwd to catching up with all the posts at the other end. Hopefully there will be snorts and grunts and squeals of indignation, from the OP supporter's side.

BIB -

In my defence, it was dark... I was confused... and I have a deep fear and paranoia of adjectives after I was shot at by one on a highway.

Have fun on your trip and think of those of us in the UK being battered by winds and storms!

 

[mrjitty]

Its about bloody time someone spoke some sense in that country.

This!

 

[lithgow1]

BIB -

In my defence, it was dark... I was confused... and I have a deep fear and paranoia of adjectives after I was shot at by one on a highway.

Have fun on your trip and think of those of us in the UK being battered by winds and storms!

Heh heh. Very good. So can you recall who came to save you from those adjectives? I mean that is a pretty memorable thing to happen, so I'm certain you can remember the names of the proper nouns who came and rescued you. What's that, you can't? Then I am sorry, but I think your story is, um, unreliable.