Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[Deleted member 102539]

Just heard on TV (3sat):

"Mord mit verminderter Tötungsabsicht"

"Murder with reduced intent to kill" - supposedly the renewed judgment.


What is that? A thing of translation?

 

[Tortoise]

Just heard on TV (3sat):

"Murder with reduced intent to kill" - supposedly the renewed judgment.


What is that? A thing of translation?

Probably meant to say indirect intent

 

[Paul Connelly]

One of the great ironies of the case is that if OP had just admitted to direct intent to kill in the trial like he was supposed to, he probably would have got home on a finding of PPD by Masipa and then been bullet proof.

This had occurred to me too, Mr Jitty. Had it not been for his vainglorious ego, he would have indeed pulled the wool over Judge Masipa's prejudiced, myopic eyes. Interestingly, vainglorious derives from the 14th century and means "worthless glory". This is perhaps equally ironic as that is precisely what his deemed past glories now are: worthless.

On the other hand, for June and Barry, two devout Christian's whom I have no doubt throughout their traumatic trials have contemplated on that well known line from Scripture:‘Have faith and you will see the Glory of God’. They have kept their Faith in their Lord and their faith in Gerrie Nel and today a radiant beam of God's Glory shone out through the prism of the honorable Gerrie and brought a partial healing they have long yearned for.

Meanwhile, Oscar, refuses to atone, for the hurt and damage he has caused to June and Barry and millions across the wider world. He says he is willing to meet Reeva's parents but he cannot even allow his pride and ego to first reconcile himself to the truth; without such reconciliation he cannot atone for what he did, inside or outside a prison cell.

June and Barry will find healing and peace given time but Oscar's vainglorious lies are leading him, via prison, straight to the abyss. I hope to God there is a good Chaplain in his prison because boy does he need one!

 

[mister happy]

Probably meant to say indirect intent

I hope so. I am beginning to hate the word: reduced.

 

[Cherwell]

Hi all.. Wow great news! I had stopped following this case because of my disgust with Masipa and her boy. But now her stupid verdict has been squashed! There's a fly in the ointment though: She will be the one re-sentencing Pistorius! Any ideas as to what Masipa might do to muck things up? Fifteen years minus one year for time served will be the absolute minimum, right? Lord please!

Has it specifically been stated that Masipa will sentence him?

 

[mrjitty]

I just thought I'd let you know what Kelly Phelps had to say:

OP has one final avenue of appeal remaining – the Constitutional Court.

She believes it’s "quite likely" that he would take his appeal to that court, and she "wouldn't be surprised" if the question of double jeopardy was something his legal team explored in their appeal.

"The issue of double jeopardy hasn't really been robustly debated in this particular context since the advent of our constitution, and I do think there are grounds for debate on reappraising the current approach".

"I certainly don't think that it is the end of the story. This simply marks the end of one phase and the beginning of another one."

I note even Phelps also said that strictly speaking Double J cant apply

CNN legal analyst Kelly Phelps said that double jeopardy -- a defense that prevents a criminal defendant from being retried on the same charges following a verdict -- did not technically apply in the Pistorius case for two reasons.

But let's go further - it cannot even apply.

An appeal is the same set of proceedings.

Similarly if a retrial was the result - that would not be Double Jeopardy either

 

[mrjitty]

Hahahahaha!! I remember that. Those were the days

Was this the whole "the prosecution didn't draft the indictment properly" thing?

As if random people on the internet have any clue how to draft an indictment, let alone better than Nel?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29145045
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34574967
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26426951

Pistorius case by numbers

 

[mrjitty]

I've got 100 crisp Australian dollars that says Oscar is currently undergoing a reaction that includes, if not entirely consists of, hours of persistent snotting , sniffing and vomiting.. we've seen it all before from Oscar... . he can do that stuff for hours.

That about buys a round of drinks for 2 people in Sydney these days right? :thinking:

 

[Trotterly]

Yes, quite possibly. It certainly gave the State some ammunition going forward.

Although it may still have been held on Appeal that he couldn't possibly have believed he was entitled to fire.

IMO, they were certain that he deliberately killed Reeva and were determined that, as far as their remit permitted it, they weren't going to suck up his lies.

Eh? The closest I saw to that was "petty conflict and tensions" in relationship.

 

[LemonMousse]

Was this the whole "the prosecution didn't draft the indictment properly" thing?

As if random people on the internet have any clue how to draft an indictment, let alone better than Nel?

There was a "lawyer" back in the early days who wouldn't accept, at all, the error in persona not being a defence thing.

It was pointed out that OP could still be convicted of murder even if it was not shown that he knew it was Reeva and her response was "bollox". When the EiP sentence was pointed out she said that it was a crock of you know what and Nel knew it!

Amazing.

 

[soozieqtips]

Eh? The closest I saw to that was "petty conflict and tensions" in relationship.

That's why the comment was preceded by "IMO". You clearly have a different interpretation. I also happen to think that Leach suspected OP deliberately killed Reeva.

 

[LemonMousse]

Eh? The closest I saw to that was "petty conflict and tensions" in relationship.

No. It's that they accepted as a fact that he was not under the impression that he was in danger when he shot.

Not that you'll reply, you never ever do when you come unstuck. Tiresome. What's the point?

 

[mrjitty]

Sorry Colin - I don't mean to be argumentative, but you are incorrect.

Murder is the intentional killing of another person. Right?

But the law understands that sometimes you behave in such a way that is so dangerous to another person that if they die your actions are tantamount to intention.

A good example would be somebody wanting to get into a toilet cubicle and choosing to blow off the door handle by shooting it.

Their conscious intention may have been to blow off the door handle - but they MUST have known they'd stand a chance of the bullets hitting a person and elected to carry on nevertheless.

This is why Pistorius is now a convicted murderer. Not because he directly intended death, but because he knowingly played fast and loose with another person's welfare.

You cannot do that and then say, "Oh well, I didn't actually mean to hurt them!" So what? You must have known you would....and that's murder.

Right.

In several countries e.g the UK and NZ, if you intentionally inflict GBH that is AUTOMATICALLY intention for murder - no need for all this DE business.

IMO its a better formulation!

 

[soozieqtips]

Was this the whole "the prosecution didn't draft the indictment properly" thing?

As if random people on the internet have any clue how to draft an indictment, let alone better than Nel?

I think Lemon's covered it. It was all pretty funny, I can tell you.

 

[LemonMousse]

Has it specifically been stated that Masipa will sentence him?

I read somewhere that the Justice Minister (or someone) is deciding whether to bring her out of retirement or get another judge.

 

[mhiforme]

I have to say that in any normal job, if you make a huge error that negatively affects the lives of others - there would be repercussions. Masipa screwed up badly in an area where one would expect her to have knowledge (otherwise, why give her the case?). As a direct result of her screwing up, Reeva's family have had to endure a gruelling year to have the appeal heard and the correct verdict handed down. Reeva's father has been very sick and all the stress and waiting must have really taken its toll. Are judges allowed to make errors (that most legal eagles spotted immediately) and carry on as if nothing happened, even down to being allowed to hand down a new sentence after messing it up in the first place? It doesn't seem like the errors she made were about hugely complicated matters, either. Maybe she'd like to apologise to Reeva's family!

BIB

Seems a bit harsh.

Mistakes happen in all facets of life, we're all human. To expect perfection from Masipa is NOT be a reasonably expectation. It's why there are appellant courts that can go through all the evidence again and make a new ruling.

Masipa has been on the bench for 30 years I believe. If she was so incompetent, she would have been fired a long time ago,

I'm really glad that the the SCA took the time in their very last paragraph of their verdict, the one everyone remembers, to acknowledge the service of Masipa. That was real professionalism.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Hi everyone!
I intended to wake up at 02:30 CST (US) to watch the proceedings but I was too tired, and then my husband woke me up gently this morning, telling me this wonderful and uplifting news - Justice for Reeva! - and I jumped out of bed in excitement and we danced around a little. I am so proud of Judge Leach in the he could deliver such and eloquent, simple and easy to follow explanation of their unanimous verdict (watched it all as soon as I had some coffee).

My heat goes out to Barry and June Steenkamp - even though they finally got justice, it will not bring Reeva back. They will forever have a huge hole in their lives.

 

[soozieqtips]

I read somewhere that the Justice Minister (or someone) is deciding whether to bring her out of retirement or get another judge.

I honestly think it should be a new judge. Masipa is screwed whatever happens. If she gives him a light sentence (again) she'll get criticised, and if she puts him away for a long time, people will say she felt pressured to do so after messing up so badly. A fresh perspective is needed.

 

[soozieqtips]

Why knock his family, they never wanted to be in this spotlight, they were thrust into it.

Perhaps they shouldn't have removed evidence from the crime scene then. Or did you miss that?