Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrjitty said:
Watched the whole thing again.

Justice Leach basically thinks he is a lying murdering toe rag.

- Told lies to the Court
- Had 3 versions
- Offered no explanation for events
- Not rational thought process
- There never was any attack

Reading between the lines - he comes pretty close to saying there never was an intruder.

He definitely says OP cannot have believed he was under attack
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If he did not believe he was under attack, and did not believe he was under threat of attack then there are only two scenarios....

The premeditated and deliberate murder of a stranger in a toilet for reasons other than that he thought they were going to harm him

Or.....

The premeditated and deliberate murder of Reeva.

As Roux himself said, "If you don't believe he thought he was under attack, then why was he shooting?"

Why indeed? Leach knows the answer to that, as do we all.
 
Just reading the judgement and got to this part:

This finding goes to the heart of the first question of law reserved ie whether the principles of dolus eventualis, including so-called ‘error in objecto’, were properly applied. In this regard, it is necessary to stress that although a perpetrator’s intention to kill must relate to the person killed, this does not mean that a perpetrator must know or appreciate the identity of the victim. A person who causes a bomb to explode in a crowded place will probably be ignorant of the identity of his or her victims, but will nevertheless have the intention to kill those who might die in the resultant explosion.

I nearly punched the air at this point - how did Marsipa not understand that?
 
So a straight replacement of CH with DE.

He over reacted to an "intruder" and could not have been scared for his life when he fired knowing he would kill the "intruder".

Is that what happened?
 
sleuth-d- said:
and yet after all this, the verdict is still based on the pistorius version... i.e. the imagined intruder.

so, as i see it, dutiful, law abiding witnesses - stipps [especially], berger-johnson, baba, vdm and the other neighbours - have not been vindicated.
Click to expand...

Not directly.

But these guys clearly considered that Masipa handled evidence wrongly. If she handled Mangena's submissions wrongly, then whether she did so with regard to the Stipps, Burgers, bedroom photos etc has to be called into question too.

The SCA may have had their hands tied regarding those particular factual findings, but it is very clear that there is one enormous question mark hanging over the entire trial - and that is something, IMO.
 
Trotterly said:
So a straight replacement of CH with DE.

He over reacted to an "intruder" and could not have been scared for his life when he fired knowing he would kill the "intruder".

Is that what happened?
Click to expand...

No.

There's no evidence at all that he "overreacted to an intruder". There is simply no reliable explanation of why he shot....including whether he really thought there was an intruder.

If he'd bothered to tell the truth, perhaps we (and the court) would know - but he lied and lied and lied. In fact, he lied to such a degree that he annihilated his own defence in the process.

I think you should ask yourself....honestly....what is the single most likely explanation for why a person accused of murder persistently lies on the witness stand?
 
LemonMousse said:
Exactly.

If he did not believe he was under attack, and did not believe he was under threat of attack then there are only two scenarios....

The premeditated and deliberate murder of a stranger in a toilet for reasons other than that he thought they were going to harm him

Or.....

The premeditated and deliberate murder of Reeva.

As Roux himself said, "If you don't believe he thought he was under attack, then why was he shooting?"

Why indeed? Leach knows the answer to that, as do we all.
Click to expand...

Precisely

He did not come up to brief as a witness to bring PPD into play.

And per Leach - he then did not actually offer any explanation as to why he fired.

This is important because for the active defences, the evidential onus is on the accused to make out a foundation for the defence.

The Prosecution never had to prove why he fired - merely that the consequences were foreseen.

Although the Supreme Court didn't need to consider the 3rd legal question - you can see that it was certainly relevant to the inquiry.
 
I am so glad that justice has finally been done.

I don't think I have posted here since Masipa's initial legally flawed judgment.

I still don't know how she could have possibly reached the outcome she did based on simple application of South African legal principles.

The appeal court correctly and unanimously found that she had erred.

Although it can't bring Reeva back, hopefully this verdict gives the Steenkamp family some comfort that justice has finally been done.

Now Masipa neeeds to throw the book at him.

Edit: Link to my original thoughts on Masipa's verdict
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...cement-of-the-verdict&p=10949663#post10949663
 
Trooper said:
It is just as likely he will get the whole 15 years..... how dicey would it be to give him a shorter sentence than anyone else, considering the original verdict was so faulty.. I don't think SA can afford another faulty call on this. oh well. my opinion.
Click to expand...

That are also my thoughts.
Can Masipa "afford" making another scandalous decision? I don't think so. I'm sure she will "try" to imagine the sanction that the BIG 5 would have given and choose this one. It could be her way of trying to apologize.
Actually, no I'm not sure of course. It's just what I'm hoping.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR POSTS!!!!
It allowed me to follow while my student were writing a test ;)
 
asanque said:
I am so glad that justice has finally been done.

I don't think I have posted here since Masipa's initial legally flawed judgment.

I still don't know how she could have possibly reached the outcome she did based on simple application of South African legal principles.

The appeal court correctly and unanimously found that she had erred.

Although it can't bring Reeva back, hopefully this verdict gives the Steenkamp family some comfort that justice has finally been done.

Now Masipa neeeds to throw the book at him.

Edit: Link to my original thoughts on Masipa's verdict
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...cement-of-the-verdict&p=10949663#post10949663
Click to expand...
....i don't think Masipa's going to be so kind this time around........after what she's had thrown at her .....
 
Leach certainly made short work of the PPD fanboys

That argument hardly got out of the blocks.

I am really still not convinced Masipa found PPD
 
Trooper said:
It is just as likely he will get the whole 15 years..... how dicey would it be to give him a shorter sentence than anyone else, considering the original verdict was so faulty.. I don't think SA can afford another faulty call on this. oh well. my opinion.
Click to expand...

Masipa will probably reduce his sentence by 2 years for good behaviour and people being mean to him on social media
 
WOW! Thank you for all your wonderful work Mr Fossil.
 
mrjitty said:
Leach certainly made short work of the PPD fanboys

That argument hardly got out of the blocks.

I am really still not convinced Masipa found PPD
Click to expand...

Me neither. And if she did, it can only be because she didn't entirely grasp what the defence actually meant. And that is nothing short of shocking.
 
soozieqtips said:
Key points:

The appeal court found that Judge Thokozile Masipa had made errors in law when reaching her original verdict of culpable homicide.

The appeal judges said Masipa was wrong in her application of dolus eventualis, as Pistorius “must have foreseen” that firing into the door could cause the death of whoever was behind it.

Masipa also wrongly conflated the test of dolus eventualis with dolus directus in accepting that the defence argument that he did not know the person behind the door was Steenkamp meant he could not be guilty of murder.

Masipa’s verdict was premised upon an acceptance that Pistorius did not think Steenkamp was in the toilet, but this was also wrong: the key thing is that the perpetrator knows his actions could kill that person, whoever it is.

The failure to take into account all the evidence – in particular, key ballistics evidence – amounted to a failure in law, the judges said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...peal-court-guilty-murder-reeva-steenkamp-live
Click to expand...

WOW! :doh:
 
Just stopped in to say ...BWA hahahahahahahahhahahahaha...:jail:
 
mrjitty said:
Leach certainly made short work of the PPD fanboys

That argument hardly got out of the blocks.

I am really still not convinced Masipa found PPD
Click to expand...

.......too early yet, see how things develop.....i'm wondering how Pistorius is going to react.....possibly an appeal....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 177 more.
Total: 2,560 (members: 178, guests: 2,382)

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
2,382
Total visitors
2,560
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,435
Messages
18,108,698
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top