Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[mrjitty]

Re circumstantial evidence

"None of it may be ignored ..."

As i suspected Masipa is in for a hiding here - whatever way it ultimately goes.

 

[mrjitty]

As an aside - so great to get back to the expected levels of quality legal analysis !

 

[K.T]

"foreseen a person behind the door...and reconciled himself. The conclusion of the trial court judge...not foreseen the possibility of that person's death occuring as he had not had the direct intent to kill... {shows that an} an incorrect test had been applied"

 

[JudgeJudi]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan · 8m8 minutes ago
Leach dismisses Masipa's reasoning around dolus eventualis as "confusing" @eNCA

Leach: what was required for court to determine was whether #OscarPistorius foresaw death of person behind door @eNCA

Leach has found Masipa made serious errors of law in her ruling. That's what is required for this appeal to succeed. #OscarPistorius

Leach dismisses defense's argument that state appeal was based on facts and not law @eNCA #OscarPistorius

 

[K.T]

Further "fundamental error" of high court trial - dolus result was premised apon the person in the toilet was Reeva and that as the accused thought it was Reeva there was no intent to dolus. Leach is disagreeing with this bad logic.

"this is know as intent of dolus in the intent of indeterminatus." (Harry Potter Spell)

 

[Sherbert]

Lack of appreciation of relevant evidence. Failure to take into account Mangena's evidence. Toilet cubicle is extremely small. There was nowhere for deceased to hide. Bullets would cause devastating wounds. All of this was circumstantial evidence pertaining to foreseeability.

 

[JudgeJudi]

First two questions are in favour of the State.

 

[mrjitty]

Boom! Boom! Boom!

 

[Suthrnqt]

"this is know as intent of dolus in the intent of indeterminatus." (Harry Potter Spell)

RSBM

[emoji81] @ Harry Potter Spell

 

[Sherbert]

What should this court do? It would be wholly impractical to order a retrial. To make no further order is also undesirable, especially in crimes of violence.

 

[Sherbert]

Subjective foresight can be proved by inference. Is there any reason to think accused did not share common foresight?

 

[Sherbert]

The accused armed himself with a heavy calibre firearm...and fired four shots and never offered an acceptable explanation for doing do.

 

[soozieqtips]

No doubt that OP did foresee possible death when he shot.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 6 Min.Vor 6 Minuten
#OscarPistorius Leach: a retrial would be wholly impractical. BB

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 18 Sek.Vor 18 Sekunden
#OscarPistorius Leach: I have no doubt that when firing the shots Pistorius must have foreseen whoever behind the door might be killed. BB

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 2 Min.Vor 2 Minuten
#OscarPistorius Leach: it’s common sense that possible death of the person behind the door was an obvious result. More so firing 4 shots.

 

[Sherbert]

PPD is an objective test. The accused stated that he did not intend to shoot. There should be rational but mistaken thought. It is inconceivable that he thought he was entitled to fire.

 

[K.T]

I had to go away
just went back to Leach saying Masipa ignored the "horrendous" injuries caused by the absolute forseeability due to size, shots in of the toilet.

The principles of dolus was incorrectly applied. First two questions go to prosecution, the last was rejected as error of fact.

 

[soozieqtips]

The accused has already served the period of imprisonment imposed by the trial court, the defence argued, so the conviction should stand.

That is “undesirable”, Leach says – people must be convicted of the crimes they have committed.

 

[Sherbert]

He must have and did foresee fatal injury. He ought to have been convicted of murder.

 

[elfie]

Finally, a reasonable, logical and eloquent argument!