Trial Discussion Thread #53 - 14.12.9, Day 42 ~ final verdict~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Judge: Larena was a good witness and showed no bias
 
“Lerena was a good witness and I did not detect any bias… and that evidence was found as true and reliable. It followed that Fresco evidence was followed [as true]…”

Found guilty – a first!
 
Yep, he eventually pleaded guilty to that one .. what has happened to that now?

Right, that was the bone defense tossed at trial's end. What's the point in going into this count?
 
Guilty of weapons charge from handling weapon negligently at Tasha's
 
Pistorius was handling Darren Fresco's firearm at the time of the incident.

Fresco could also be held liable for this charge since it was his weapon, but he could be granted immunity in return for truthful testimony. Masipa decides if he's truthful or not.

Masipa: the accused admitted that he wanted to see the firearm. But said he did not know it was loaded. BB

Masipa says it doesn't matter what caused the gun to discharge, it matters if there was intent or negligence.

Masipa says it matters that Pistorius asked to hold a gun while in a loaded restaurant

Masipa says that Kevin Lerena was good witness and accepts his evidence in total as true and reliable

She says the court also accepts the evidence that Fresco gave was reliable

Masipa says Pistorius shouldn't have asked for a gun in a public place

Oscar Pistorius guilty of count 3


http://cnnworldlive.cnn.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_trial_4
 
J: In respect of count four...possession of (??) rounds of .38 ammunition...
 
A slap on the wrist for negligently handling a firearm.
 
It seems the judge analyzes each of OP's lies separately, and his serial mendacity doesn't seem to matter.
 
Daily News ‏@DailyNewsSA 1m
#OscarPistorius Masipa: OP was sufficiently trained in use of firearm - hence shud not have asked for gun in restaurant or even handled it
 
Judge reading out all reasons why that possession was against the firearms act.
 
Taylors testimony had to be looked at with caution, because she had reason to lie because of the way things ended.

What about OP? Doesnt he have a good motive to lie?

Couldn't agree more - he has a hell of a lot more motive to perjure himself than she does IMO.
 
J: The accused made admission he did not possess a license but denied he offended against the act....
 
Judge now quoting case law about bank robbers using an AK47
 
“Section 1 20, 1 A, I quote, a person is guilty of an offense if she or he failed to comply with any provision of this act.”
"“The accused stated he did not contravene this act…

We're now talking about a previous case...about a firearm charge in a commission of a robbery
 
This is a little bit tiresome tbh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
J:..from the above it is clear state must prove accused had necessary mental intention (animus) before there can be conviction....clear it's possible to possess a firearm innocently
 
Count 4 - possessing ammunition without the relevant license

Pistorius claims that he was holding the ammunition for his father and that it was in a safe

he defense said that the Firearms Control Act didn't specify where the ammunition needed to be held, just that it needed to be secure.

Masipa now referring to case law used by the defense to exonerate Pistorius of the charge

Masipa says the state needed to prove that Pistorius had the necessary mental intention to possess a firearm or ammunition before there can be a conviction

sfindlay
@SJFindlay

Pistorius's father Henke, takes a deep breath as Judge Masipa reviews case law about the illegal possession of ammunition

http://cnnworldlive.cnn.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_trial_4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
3,137
Total visitors
3,265

Forum statistics

Threads
603,893
Messages
18,164,990
Members
231,882
Latest member
MelChard
Back
Top