Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[buntspecht]

We have Lance's rival Jan Ullrich, our special "hero":

Doping
Jan Ullrich Admits Doping
1997 Tour de France winner confesses to working with disgraced doctor Eufemiano Fuentes

"We are both guilty," said Ullrich, referring to the American. "I am no better than Armstrong, but no worse either. The great heroes of old are now people with failings that we've got to come to terms with. I always knew that even Lance Armstrong would not get away with it."

"It is far too late to try and clean things up," he said of the cyclist who retired in February, 2007, denying that he had ever cheated. "He could have helped the sport of cycling if he had laid everything out on the table much earlier.

I still love Jan Ullrich.
Wait a minute... handsome, rich, famous

 

[Jamtart]

Correct .. I knew someone exactly like this, they really and truly, actually believed the lies they told! You're on a hiding to nothing with people like that .. really scary.

I don't remember OP's exact words but when giving evidence (or telling lies as I prefer to call it), he said something along the lines of "if Reeva had just spoken to me............. it wouldn't have happened". Now, if you believe his 'version' that could mean that if she had shouted, he would have realised it was Reeva and not an intruder in the bathroom. If you agree with the Judge that he is a liar, then it could mean that she had locked herself in the bathroom and was refusing to come out and speak to him, and he lost the rag. Along with that other comment "I just wanted Reeva...to ask...................why.................... was she calling the police" then it may give us an idea of what really happened that night. I think OP may have convinced himself that it was Reeva's fault. Just my thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

About 51% of people between the ages 18 to 24 said Pistorius intended to kill Steenkamp. This went up to 63% of people between 25 and 34, and 81% of respondents in the 35 to 49 age category.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/south-africans-think-oscar-pistorius-guilty-murder-survey/

And why would this be? Because older people aren’t influenced by the total nonsense of celebrity status but rather take the time and trouble to consider all the facts.

Boo hoo, my age group must be 82-95%

In my age group I would estimate about 110%, including me.

 

[Mr Fossil]

"Unsuccessful Attempts to Justify Judge Masipa’s Errors"

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/

 

[lithgow1]

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 11. Sep.

I can't believe that the judge in the Oscar Pistorious case has found him not guilty of murder. No one has been more guilty since O.J.!


Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 12. Sep.

The judge in the Oscar Pistorious case is a total moron. She said he didn't act like a killer. This is another O.J. disaster!

It's a strange day indeed when I find myself in agreement with D Trump to some degree.

 

[buntspecht]

Paralympics head won't promote Pistorius' return

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_307134/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=tOaij6Vc

Whether Pistorius will be competing there will become clearer next month.

was the last sentence.
No no no, why not at least a any suspension?

 

[Interested Bystander]

so you could be my girlfriend.

Hahaha

 

[JudgeJudi]

The very latest by Prof James Grant - published today

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/

Definitely worth reading.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I thinking of Lance Armstrong! Some folks lie like a rug. He lies like wall-to-wall carpeting at the convention center.

speaking of lance armstrong.

 

[buntspecht]

The very latest by Prof James Grant - published today

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/

Definitely worth reading.

'Masipa made errors of law and logic.'

I feel better now.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

The very latest by Prof James Grant - published today

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/

Definitely worth reading.

You've had a 'jinx' moment with Mr Fossil.

 

[sleuth-d-]

"Unsuccessful Attempts to Justify Judge Masipa’s Errors"

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/

good article, imo, especially the discussion around this part:

She says: the accused could not have forseen the possibility of killing the deceased, or anyone else for that matter, becuase he thought the deceased was in the bedroom

oh dear masipa! how can anyone trust the judgement of someone that puts this reasoning together.

re: eventualis. she does seem to have missed the [really, really, REALLY important] difference between unlawful intent in op's mind to kill the deceased [reeva]; and unlawful intent in op's mind to kill the person behind the door...

i know she assumed office in dec 1998 [16 years experience]. anyone have any idea how many cases she has presided over - is it 10s? 100s? 1000s? i wonder how many murder cases?

 

[Sherbert]

"Unsuccessful Attempts to Justify Judge Masipa’s Errors"

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/

From an admittedly rather quick scan of her judgement, I do think that Masipa accepted that OP was acting in PPD, (although she takes a while to get around to it and seems to become distracted by other issues along the way), on the basis that it was reasonably possibly true that he believed that there was an intruder in the toilet.

However, what I don't understand is how this finding could be made in isolation, without properly analysing the issue of whether the force used was proportionate.

To my mind, if the force used was found to be disproportionate, this would mean that OP did have the intention to kill unlawfully, whether or not he believed there was an intruder in the toilet.

I agree that the Judgement lacks clarity - it's really quite unbelievable that Milady and the assessors took so long to come up with such a mishmash. Maybe, it just boils down to the fact that they were overawed by Roux's fierce reputation and simply weren't up to the job, rather than anything more sinister.

 

[Jake18]

http://www.zapiro.com/cartoon/2359593-140916tt#.VBrPCUuLauc

I think this is great.

 

[buntspecht]

I can't move past this being a corrupt decision. This is because :
1) The cherry picking of the DT's argument to dismiss dolus directus - fair enough lots of legal pundits didn't think there was enough for this but it wasn't a reasoned judgement.
2) The dismissal of dolus eventualis because OP, an experienced firearms owner, did not foresee that shooting 4 times into a tiny space would kill the occupant.
3) A guilty verdict on the one charge Roux had given permission for.
4) Acquittal on the ammunition charge for completely inexplicable reasons; this also sets up a dangerous legal precedent where no one can ever be convicted of possessing anything.
5) verdict announcement immediately followed by announcement from Team OP about *recommencement of training, Olympic plans etc. And a possible book deal.

*If there's a suspended sentence, of course although *if* and *when* seem interchangeable.

I don't want to believe this and would love for someone to convince me otherwise.

maybe the last paragraph of #676 of Sherbert would convince you.
It's worth reading the whole reply, and of course the link.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I still love Jan Ullrich.
Wait a minute... handsome, rich, famous

..... modest, politely, restrained ..... :smile:

 

[JudgeJudi]

Brief interview with Prof James Grant, the most relevant part being:

Q. Do you expect that there’ll be an appeal?

JG: Absolutely. My understanding of Gerrie Nel, as is the understanding of most people, is that he’s a terrier, he doesn’t let go. And I understand he’s serious and from all reports and I thoroughly expect he will appeal.

https://twitter.com/Radio702/status/511399022234718208

 

[LemonMousse]

New blog post from James Grant explaining why those who are trying to defend the Masipa ruling are wrong. (In his opinion).

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/comment-page-1/#comment-1012

Oh, gosh...sorry. Hadn't realised this link had already been posted twice!

Oh well, so good we said it thrice, eh?

 

[Jake18]

From an admittedly rather quick scan of her judgement, I do think that Masipa accepted that OP was acting in PPD, (although she takes a while to get around to it and seems to become distracted by other issues along the way), on the basis that it was reasonably possibly true that he believed that there was an intruder in the toilet.

However, what I don't understand is how this finding could be made in isolation, without properly analysing the issue of whether the force used was proportionate.

To my mind, if the force used was found to be disproportionate, this would mean that OP did have the intention to kill unlawfully, whether or not he believed there was an intruder in the toilet.

I agree that the Judgement lacks clarity - it's really quite unbelievable that Milady and the assessors took so long to come up with such a mishmash. Maybe, it just boils down to the fact that they were overawed by Roux's fierce reputation and simply weren't up to the job, rather than anything more sinister.

BIB This paragraph buntspecht?

I think it's highly possible and probably more likely than something more sinister.

Although ...... I still can't move past the ammunition verdict. That's just odd. How can the state prove possession if you already possess it?

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB This paragraph buntspecht?

I think it's highly possible and probably more likely than something more sinister.

Although ...... I still can't move past the ammunition verdict. That's just odd. How can the state prove possession if you already possess it?

I am struggling a bit to believe in a sinister explanation....but the whole thing does stink. Two fairly massive mistakes in one judgement?

I think all of them were taken in by the snot, puke and wails, believed that this dear man could not possibly have wanted to kill anyone, and worked backwards from there.

It's distinctly odd that she highlighted his dishonesty, but then took precisely no account of it whatsoever. That smacks to me of including mention of it simply because it was a step too far to claim he was a decent, honest witness.

"Yes he was an evasive liar....but what of it?"

Amazing.