Trial Discussion Thread #56 - 14.15.10, Day 45 ~ sentencing~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
04009margaret said:
Put before any other judge I would agree a previous partners experience is a must, but I fear this could all go horribly wrong as Masipa has already judge ST as a woman scorned.
Click to expand...

If Nel also thinks that, he might not have her as a witness. Everybody is just guessing who they might be. I think the night club incident could be included.
 
Estelle said:
Isn't Vergeer employed by Correctional Services? I suspect that her services might be reconsidered and should be. What an embarrassment to them!
Click to expand...

She is employed by Correctional Services. It appears that for a time each year she goes on leave and is self-employed. That's how she came to give evidence on behalf of the DT. In view of the statement CS has given, she should either have her employment terminated with them or they tell her there's a conflict of interest and she can't work privately in that capacity any more .
 
Estelle said:
Nick van der Leek ‏@HiRezLife 6h6 hours ago

My predictions for tomorrow - wrap up Kim Martin, prison official, Batchelor and finish off with Sam Taylor. #OscarTrial

IMO Night club incident should be covered too by Mortimer
Click to expand...

Mine predictions: Kim Martin, Corrective Services, Jared Mortimer and Sam Taylor.

Mortimer is more recent - it happened only a few weeks ago, he can say there were many witnesses, and he hasn't got the well-known bad reputation (that I'm aware of) as Batchelor.
 
jacalyn said:
Oscar (the hot head) gunned Reeva down in the smallest enclosed (coffin like) AREA in his house. This woman's last breath was over/near a F'n toilet. So your surprised OJ...opps Oscar lied? OJ...opps Oscar also had a person living on his property, OJ vs Oscar...both walked. Difference, OJ denied it, Oscar admitted it AND it still makes no difference.

Dear Oscar, I would like to pay for a one-way ticket for YOU to come to VEGAS. Inasmuch as, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. For confirmation on this, just ask OJ.
Click to expand...

I love this post! Let's all chip in for a ticket for OP to Vegas. :p
 
TheCitizen Newspaper ‏@TheCitizen_News 9m9 minutes ago

Has #OscarPistorius learnt his lesson? by Nokuthula Sonile

http://ow.ly/CPYoi
 
Judgejudi said:
And this is my point:

That phone was not removed from the crime scene by an investigating officer. The only people present at any time were police, ambos, OP, friends, family and lawyer.

How could it be used in evidence if the State were unaware of its existence?
It is a criminal offence to remove something from a crime scene without permission.
It was handed to OP's defence team by an unnamed person.
It was handed to OP's defence team some 12 days later.
Once it was in the possession of the State and been unlocked they discovered much had been deleted.

If what was deleted was irrelevant, why delete it at all.

This is totally inexcusable and is considered tampering, i.e. an act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation.

What don't you understand.
Click to expand...

Right on the money again JJudi!
 
jilly said:
You do see the writing on the wall as to where Masipa is going, right?

So, as you and Dershowitz agree - either he knew she was behind the door or he didn't. That's what it appears to boil down to.
Dershowitz said she didn't know and if she didn't then she has to acquit. That tells me the Nel did not prove that Oscar knew it was her behind that door.

So. Are you saying there was enough evidence presented by the prosecution that Oscar knew?

I think there was but, like I've said before, Masipa doesn't make inferences.
Click to expand...

I'm not agreeing with Dershowitz - my point was it seems he is wrong on SA law. All along legal experts from there have been saying that even if OP didn't know it was her behind the door he could still be found guilty of murder (eventualis) if the court accepted he had intent to kill the 'intruder'. Maybe Dershowitz is thinking along US lines but in SA you can't just shoot someone even if they are an intruder in your home so I don't know why he states 'if OP didn't know it was RS than it's innocent self-defence' as that's not necessarily the case. I think he's just a big name American lawyer who wanted to have his two-bobs worth and commented without really knowing the law in the jurisdiction he was talking about.

The PT did enough to convince me when you look at the evidence in totality (earwitnesses, stomach contents and other pathology aspects, ballistics, crime scene photos, defendent's lies) but I guess if you pick those apart one by one (or in the judge's case seemingly ignore the 'tricky' ones) and add to that the 'beyond reasonable doubt' aspect then maybe they didn't. Most legal analysts seemed to think they hadn't for premeditated but had done way enough for dolus eventualis. So I cannot understand a ruling that says an experienced gun owner who knew all the laws relating to his gun use and still fired four black talons bullets into a tiny space could not have known he would likely kill the person in that space, making him guilty of shooting with intent to kill. All three of the four that hit her could have been fatal and IMO there is no doubt whatsoever that he knew that would be the result.
 
Estelle said:
Oscar Pistorius Case Draws Attention To Judge's Background
October 15, 2014 4:22 PM ET

Listen to the Story here:

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/15/356451317/oscar-pistorius-case-draws-attention-to-judges-background
Click to expand...

IMO it is to Masipa's credit that she overcame adversity and achieved in her ambition, succeeded at university to graduate in social work, then journalism and eventually with a Law Degree. All of that history is worthy of acknowledgement as being an outstanding achievement, BUT if as alleged in SA Legal circles, she has made an error interpreting the Law in this case, then her verdict needs to be challenged legally in the interests of justice being seen to be done. I hope that the NPA can appeal if they believe there has been an error interpreting the SA law.
 
lithgow1 said:
The PT did enough to convince me when you look at the evidence in totality (earwitnesses, stomach contents and other pathology aspects, ballistics, crime scene photos, defendent's lies) but I guess if you pick those apart one by one (or in the judge's case seemingly ignore the 'tricky' ones) and add to that the 'beyond reasonable doubt' aspect then maybe they didn't. Most legal analysts seemed to think they hadn't for premeditated but had done way enough for dolus eventualis. So I cannot understand a ruling that says an experienced gun owner who knew all the laws relating to his gun use and still fired four black talons bullets into a tiny space could not have known he would likely kill the person in that space, making him guilty of shooting with intent to kill. All three of the four that hit her could have been fatal and IMO there is no doubt whatsoever that he knew that would be the result.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely with the suggestion that OP's knowledge of firearms should have made it absolutely clear that he was likely to kill whoever was behind the toilet door. I'd also expect this to be apparent to those inexperienced with firearms.

We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.
 
steveml said:
We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.
Click to expand...

He was convicted of intentionally killing a person though wasn't he?
 
steveml said:
I agree entirely with the suggestion that OP's knowledge of firearms should have made it absolutely clear that he was likely to kill whoever was behind the toilet door. I'd also expect this to be apparent to those inexperienced with firearms.

We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it doesn't make sense to me.

On the night in February 2013, OP made himself judge, jury and executioner when he retrieved his gun from its holster, cocked it, made his way to the bathroom, gave no warning to the perceived intruder, gave no warning shot for the perceived intruder and fired 4 bullets to kill the perceived intruder, not one, but four bullets. Interestingly, he halted for a brief moment after the first shot, then proceeded to pump out the next 3 shots to kill. This is all on the proviso that OP's story is true.

Imo, the punishment should fit the crime. OP deserves to serve time. What do you believe is adequate punishment?
 
steveml said:
I agree entirely with the suggestion that OP's knowledge of firearms should have made it absolutely clear that he was likely to kill whoever was behind the toilet door. I'd also expect this to be apparent to those inexperienced with firearms.

We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person. This was deemed to be incorrect by the court, therefore it's imperative that the punishment fits the crime. We can't simply classify the act of unintentionally shooting a partner (in the belief that you were defending yourself and your partner) with the same criminality as somebody intentionally murdering a person. Would you honestly want a justice system that operates like this? If so, then this would be a system that totally ignores the emotive issues between families, partners and loved ones etc.
Click to expand...

No idea what you are saying. What is "We can accept that there was intent to kill, but we have to balance this with the prosecution charge that OP intended to kill an innocent person."??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 78 more.
Total: 261 (members: 79, guests: 182)

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
182
Total visitors
261
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,004
Messages
18,248,442
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top