Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cherwell said:
But what if he is given a custodial sentence on the firearms charges, one of which has now been conceded? Hypothetical I know, as he might get away with less, but surely if he's in prison for a different offence, why would he get bail on a murder appeal?
Click to expand...

Hi there Cherwell. Well, I've looked yet again and I can't find what I'm looking for. Googling just bring up a million hits for OP. The hard part about this search is the multiple count aspect. However I did find this ... although it's not really answering your question but it's the best I can do:

"If the convicted person was out on bail for trial, the court granting bail pending appeal (or review) may extend bail, in the same amount or in any other amount.[

… It shall be a condition of release that the convicted person shall surrender himself at the time and place specified by court, and upon service of notice in the prescribed manner, to commence the sentence, in the event that the convicted person still has to undergo imprisonment after the disposal of the appeal.

The fact that the person is now convicted and sentenced to imprisonment changes the position practically: There is no longer a presumption of innocence, on the one hand; on the other hand, the incentive to evade justice is greater. In principle, bail may be granted even if the case is serious and the convicted person is facing a long period of imprisonment. The key factor is whether or not the convicted person will report for sentence.

Logically, a court may refuse bail pending appeal if it is an appeal against the sentence only. At best for the convicted person, whichever way the appeal goes, he will still end up serving a lengthy period of imprisonment. If a convicted person loses his appeal to the High Court, he may still be released on bail pending an application for leave to appeal or petition to the SCA."

However the usual practice in SA is for sentences to run concurrently, with exceptions if there's, say, a murder and rape, so I still think he'll be swanning around in Uncle Arnold's spacious grounds. I'll keep my fingers crossed this isn't the case.
 
Susza said:
Hmm, why do you quote a BILD (5-pence-newspaper) jounalist ?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Kai Feldhaus, but found it somehow interesting to read this special opinion (as a fulltime layman :smile:). I didn't notice him as a BILD journalist, searched something with "twitter Oscar Pistorius".


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/pistorius-murder-judge-verdict-september

Pistorius' hopes could hinge on a forensic timeline of events constructed by the defence to show that the state's version – in which the fatal shots were fired at 3.17am – cannot be true.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/oscar-pistorius-trial-state-defence-case-summary

But Nel insisted Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp. She was facing the door when he fired directly at her. He said WhatsApp messages between the pair show they were having problems, with Steenkamp saying she was “scared” of her boyfriend. Nel told the court: “This was not a normal relationship. This relationship ended in death.”
 
jassy writer said:
I was thinking about this last night, and one of the thoughts which occurred to me was this:

Roux is an excellent and well respected defense advocate, no doubt about it. But how many times in his career has he had to defend a person accused of murder? With his prices, in the echelons that he moves in, with the type of clientele he has? I have looked this up and I stand corrected, but I can't find any other actual murder cases he has been involved in, only other criminal cases such as tax evasion.

Nel on the other hand will have had thousands of murder cases to prosecute in his career. He knows this territory very, very well, and this is why most times that Nel and Roux have disagreed over a point of law, and Masipa has taken time to decide, she has ruled in Nel's favour. (most times, not all, but the majority).

Nel has more expertise in this area. Roux has less. This is why Nel is so very confident. It is why he could do things like call the defense out on the impossibility of OP's having two contradictory defenses... a basic error that they really should not have made.

Roux has had a very difficult case here and I think he has done his best with it, given the limits of what he was working with and his own experience, but I am absolutely certain that Masipa will hand down a verdict of murder on September 11.
Click to expand...


I had the same thoughts, thanks for putting it into words.

I think BRoux was absolutly the wrong person to defend a killer. To defend e.g. Nestle, all these "whishiwashi" arguments may count, tricks and trickery, and its not so important if DT believes the client.

BRoux does not believe OPs version, but he should have made it clear to OP. (as in re Tashas Restaurant).
If Nels version is true, than it would make more sense to defend in a humble manner, and hoping for some years of reduction.

BRoux in this case is not worth its money.
 
liesbeth said:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-version-shooting-called-lie/story?id=23286292

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/sahrc-complaint-nel-infringed-oscars-rights-calling-liar/

https://twitter.com/SapaNews/status/454551940631113728

Thank you, you are very kind.

I remember this incident because there was a gentleman here in SA who complained to the Human Rights Council about it.


On Friday, 11 April @ about 1:23:50 Nel talks about the top part of the denim lying on the duvet. At 1:26:24 Nel says if the denim was lying like that on the day, Oscar is lying.

At 1:29:30 the judge told Nel to watch his language. Nel sounded a bit surprised but accepted the judge's statement.

At the time I asked my Afrikaans husband about this. Why was Nel so surprised? My husband explained that in Afrikaans and English, both Western cultures, what Nel said was not meant as a personal attack on Oscar, but an attack on the facts.

In my culture, Judge Masipa's culture, if you say someone has eagle eyes you are calling him an eagle. If you say someone is like a rock, you say that he is a rock. We are not big on similes and metaphor, we're more literal.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for finding that for me. I instinctively knew I would have remembered if he had actually said the word "liar". Nel several times said that OP was lying about the facts; that I accept. I suppose it is splitting hairs but such a lot has been made in the press of Nel actually calling OP a liar. I have a feeling that Roux did the same to the State's early witnesses but was not reprimanded. If I can find the time I will try to find an instance. I think Roux actually said "that is a lie". I don't see a difference (if I am remembering correctly). I wonder why the Judge only intervened when it was Nel? Maybe I am misremembering, in which case I will happily own up - lol! If Nel had said OP was 'untruthful', I wonder whether so much would have been made of it, given both words have the same meaning. I really do think way too much was made of this issue. In court in the UK people do get called liars (and are told they are lying) whilst they are in the witness box. I wonder why Masipa was so prissy (fussy) about this issue especially as fairly obviously he was prevaricating much of his time on the stand.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/08/never-called-oscar-pistorius-liar-nel/

“I never called Oscar Pistorius a liar: Nel”
 
jassy writer said:
I was thinking about this last night, and one of the thoughts which occurred to me was this:

Roux is an excellent and well respected defense advocate, no doubt about it. But how many times in his career has he had to defend a person accused of murder? With his prices, in the echelons that he moves in, with the type of clientele he has? I have looked this up and I stand corrected, but I can't find any other actual murder cases he has been involved in, only other criminal cases such as tax evasion.

Nel on the other hand will have had thousands of murder cases to prosecute in his career. He knows this territory very, very well, and this is why most times that Nel and Roux have disagreed over a point of law, and Masipa has taken time to decide, she has ruled in Nel's favour. (most times, not all, but the majority).

Nel has more expertise in this area. Roux has less. This is why Nel is so very confident. It is why he could do things like call the defense out on the impossibility of OP's having two contradictory defenses... a basic error that they really should not have made.

Roux has had a very difficult case here and I think he has done his best with it, given the limits of what he was working with and his own experience, but I am absolutely certain that Masipa will hand down a verdict of murder on September 11.
Click to expand...

Excellent post and could explain why Roux's HoA were so poor. I agree he has done his best for OP but if Murder Defence is not one's sphere of expertise it must have seemed like "being thrown in at the deep end". Who on earth would want a client like OP. It would be difficult to keep up with the changes let alone make sense of them. I wonder if he was pressured into taking the case on?
 
In my culture, Judge Masipa's culture, if you say someone has eagle eyes you are calling him an eagle. If you say someone is like a rock, you say that he is a rock. We are not big on similes and metaphor, we're more literal.
Click to expand...

I like this culture!
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...storius-court-defence-closing-arguments-video

Oscar Pistorius arrives at Pretoria High Court as his defence team prepares to present their closing arguments to the judge. The athlete could be acquitted if the judge rules Pistorius was genuinely in fear for his life, as he claims. Pistorius has maintained he did not know his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was behind the locked bathroom door when he shot through it

http://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...es-court-closing-arguments-murder-trial-video

The paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius arrives at court on Thursday, when prosecution and defence lawyers will present their closing arguments in his trial for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. In addition to the murder charge, Pistorius faces three other gun-related charges. If found guilty of premeditated murder, Pistorius will serve a life sentence, but if found to have killed Steenkamp by accident, he will still serve a 15-year sentence in prison
 
http://article.wn.com/view/2014/08/09/Oscar_Pistorius_trial_Judge_to_deliver_murder_verdict_on_11_/

For a trial that long before it even started has seemed to be more about television drama than justice for a dead young woman, it will come as little surprise that its final act is likely to be billed as 9/11 Judgement Day. It will be on September 11th, almost six and a half months after the trial began and nineteen months after Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, that he will finally learn his fate.
 
buntspecht said:
I had the same thoughts, thanks for putting it into words.

I think BRoux was absolutly the wrong person to defend a killer. To defend e.g. Nestle, all these "whishiwashi" arguments may count, tricks and trickery, and its not so important if DT believes the client.

BRoux does not believe OPs version, but he should have made it clear to OP. (as in re Tashas Restaurant).
If Nels version is true, than it would make more sense to defend in a humble manner, and hoping for some years of reduction.

BRoux in this case is not worth its money.
Click to expand...

bbm - Hmm, how much is a soul going for these days?
 
Interested Bystander said:
Thank you so much for finding that for me. I instinctively knew I would have remembered if he had actually said the word "liar". Nel several times said that OP was lying about the facts; that I accept. I suppose it is splitting hairs but such a lot has been made in the press of Nel actually calling OP a liar. I have a feeling that Roux did the same to the State's early witnesses but was not reprimanded. If I can find the time I will try to find an instance. I think Roux actually said "that is a lie". I don't see a difference (if I am remembering correctly). I wonder why the Judge only intervened when it was Nel? Maybe I am misremembering, in which case I will happily own up - lol! If Nel had said OP was 'untruthful', I wonder whether so much would have been made of it, given both words have the same meaning. I really do think way too much was made of this issue. In court in the UK people do get called liars (and are told they are lying) whilst they are in the witness box. I wonder why Masipa was so prissy (fussy) about this issue especially as fairly obviously he was prevaricating much of his time on the stand.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/08/never-called-oscar-pistorius-liar-nel/

“I never called Oscar Pistorius a liar: Nel”
Click to expand...

Same in Australia.

Judge Masipa was bending over backwards that OP has a fair trial and that she is seen to treat him respectfully, and she did, more than he deserves imo.
But in all fairness, she treated all the witnesses kindly, she is the nicest judge I've ever seen. :)
 
Interested Bystander said:
Excellent post and could explain why Roux's HoA were so poor. I agree he has done his best for OP but if Murder Defence is not one's sphere of expertise it must have seemed like "being thrown in at the deep end". Who on earth would want a client like OP. It would be difficult to keep up with the changes let alone make sense of them. I wonder if he was pressured into taking the case on?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Defence attorneys are not in the business of only retaining cases they can win… of course winning cases is one measure of a good attorney BUT if all the cases won are easy cases then it's not so impressive.

Roux was well compensated for his work in OP's case… he got some media attention which is basically free publicity… and whatever the outcome, he has done his job to the best of his ability considering what he had to work with.

I suspect every attorney in SA (and all over the world) have figured out what type of case this was and what kind of client OP was… so nobody will be blaming Roux if the end result is dolus directus with life in prison for OP.
 
jillondon said:
The Beeld reported on Saturday that Lois Pistorius, glowered at Nel on Friday and asked in Afrikaans: "Kry jy nie skaam nie? (Aren't you ashamed?),"

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...aunt-asks-nel-if-he-is-not-ashamed-of-himself
Click to expand...

The Pistorius family is out of its mind… how about OP ?… should he not crawl under a rock in shame for what he did, regardless of which version one chooses to believe.

Nel is doing his job… Roux is doing his job… Masipa and the assessor are doing their jobs.

If this was in any way malicious prosecution you can bet Roux would have brought an application in that regards… but he never did…
 
PrimeSuspect said:
Same in Australia.

Judge Masipa was bending over backwards that OP has a fair trial and that she is seen to treat him respectfully, and she did, more than he deserves imo.
But in all fairness, she treated all the witnesses kindly, she is the nicest judge I've ever seen. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed…

Every Judge has his own style and demeanor… Masipa was the loving, patient but firm grand'ma type… OP has nothing to complain about regarding her conduct towards him or his Defence.
 
Susza said:
A clear mind, immense knowledge, generosity in sharing it in a factual way. All this and more combined with a good sense of humor: A precious mix!
Click to expand...

:blushing:

:dance:

:blowkiss:
 
FromGermany said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28686756

Pistorius trial: Prosecutor outlines '13 inconsistencies'

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel presented a "baker's dozen" of incongruities the state says it found in Oscar Pistorius' defence case.
Click to expand...

Thank you FG for the bakers dozen :)

9. Irritating light? In order to explain how he failed to see his girlfriend leave the bed, Mr Nel says the athlete made up the story of keeping his back to the bed while trying to cover up a blue LED light emitting from an amplifier near the bed. Mr Pistorius says he did this using a pair of Ms Steenkamp's jeans.

-----------

Roux in his closing stated that after OP brought in the two fans, it was then OP was bothered by the blue LED light?! How strange is that, so he wasn't bothered by it while lying in bed only when he got up??!!! That is just so ridiculous and obviously a lie!
:shame:

Roux then explained further that OP first was focused on going to the balcony, then he was focused on covering the blue LED light with the jeans. Was Op wearing blinkers like a horse? OP was so focused like he was in a race? I can't get my head around the rubbish Roux was spouting. Roux was in no way painting a picture of normality for any human being, let alone Oscar Pistorius!

While I'm here I'll mention about Roux comparing OP to an abused woman who has finally had enough, and killed the abuser!!!! This is just so outrageous, it's an insult to domestic violence victims AND people with a disability. OP was on the slow burn, so does that go for every person with a disability? Obviously by Roux's reasoning OP was and still is a loose cannon! :gaah:



JMHO
 
AJ_DS said:
As I understand it, Defence attorneys are not in the business of only retaining cases then can win… of course winning cases is one measure of a good attorney BUT if all the cases won are easy cases then it's not so impressive.

Roux was well compensated for his work in OP's case… he got some media attention which is basically free publicity… and whatever the outcome, he has done his job to the best of his ability considering what he had to work with.

I suspect every attorney in SA (and all over the world) have figured out what type of case this was and what kind of client OP was… so nobody will be blaming Roux if the end result is dolus directus with life in prison for OP.
Click to expand...


I agree but defence lawyers specialise and if Roux has no expertise in the defence of murder he surely will not have been as good as one who does. If I had been accused of murder I would not be too happy employing a Defence Lawyer if his speciality was corporate/company law or divorce. I hope the Pistorius's were totally aware of his abilities or Roux might be thrown under a bus yet again. However, he did do his best to defend an almost indefensible felon. Did he do it for the money and prestige - who knows - but IMO the odds are stacked that way. The few lawyers I know most definitely are very aware what they will make from defending their cases and the "juicier the better". In fact I would say it is uppermost on their minds - LOL. I don't see much evidence of ultruism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 123 more.
Total: 1,489 (members: 124, guests: 1,365)

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
1,365
Total visitors
1,489
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,177
Messages
18,136,192
Members
231,261
Latest member
birdistheword14
Back
Top