Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

[jay-jay]

Mandy Wiener @MandyWiener · 52s 52 seconds ago
#OscarPistorius Nel: I don't have to convince this court I am correct, only that State may convince SCA to hear this appeal.


I just heard Masipa ask "What is the time?" She can't wait for this to end.

BBM .. are you sure that wasn't Nel? I saw and heard him say that at about the same time you must've posted ... unless they both said it ;-)

 

[zwiebel]

Lol, the hashtag #withtheutmostrespect has appeared on twitter now.

 

[katydid23]

Barry Bateman
‏@barrybateman
#OscarPistorius Nel: trained in the use of firearms, knowing how big the cubicle was - how did he not foresee the consequences? BB

 

[Estelle]

Ha!! I think Nel just nailed Masipa on the total irrelevance of Seekoi with a Constitutional Court trump card!

I'm SO happy Prof. Grant is on the team.

Is that Grant sitting next to Nel?

 

[katydid23]

Barry Bateman @barrybateman · 50s 51 seconds ago
#OscarPistorius Nel: court found that the accused had the intention to shoot, but found he never intended to kill.
What was his intention?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Nel: What was he intention?

OP: I didn't have time to think. I didn't intend to shoot anyone; I didn't intend to shoot someone. My gun was pointing at the door and "went off" because I was startled. I actually do have GAD /PTSD, my mother was an alcoholic, I'm disabled, I scream like a woman, I cry and vomit, and any other excuse or theatrics I think you'll "buy".

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: the court rejected his version, said he was lying. The court made a finding that he had intention to shoot, but never intended to hurt that person...but with Doelus Eventualis it's sufficient to think he accepted there was possibility he would kill someone...

Now Nel moves onto OP raising putative private defence: 'With utmost respect, it's an error in the application of Doelus Eventualis'

 

[JudgeJudi]

Mandy Wiener @MandyWiener · 9m 9 minutes ago
#OscarPistorius Nel addressing central issue of appeal - whether state is appealing on law or on fact. He says on law. Defence says on fact.

Mandy Wiener retweeted
Karyn Maughan @karynmaughan · 38m 38 minutes ago
This is a very useful explanation of Seekoei case and it's relevance to #OscarPistorius …criminallaw101andbeyond.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/seekoei-beeld.pdf …

 

[AW2B]

Barry Bateman @barrybateman · 50s 51 seconds ago
#OscarPistorius Nel: court found that the accused had the intention to shoot, but found he never intended to kill.
What was his intention?

Masipa probably thinks he intended to miss...

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: Did he realise, at the time, perhaps he's too aggressive?...The qquestions that should have been asked, were not asked.

 

[G.bng]

The gist of what has turned into a complicated monologue from Nel is that Seekoei determined that the prosecution could appeal an acquittal but not a conviction on a lesser charge (as happened with Pistorius). Nel says Seekoei is not applicable.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...ecution-appeal-culpable-homicide-verdict-live

I don't think he said it was not applicable since has been applied for some 30 odd years and unsuccessfully challenged several times up to date. For it to be not applicable the SCA will have to reverse the Seekoei ruling which with the new constitution is quite likely since it creates an anomaly and an injustice. In his article "The Seekoie-Barrier", Professor Grant notes:

I think the odds are good that the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein its judgment in this (Seekoei) matter.

It's a new court, new judges and a new era. Nel has a tough fight ahead of him, but not an insurmountable one.

If the appeals court gives Nel his way reverses the Seekoei decision, this leaves two possibilities:

■ The appeal court can, under section 324 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
direct that Pistorius stands trial again;

or

■ the appeals court can deal with the case as an ordinary appeal and simply
deal with the evidence and facts in the record.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel moves to the question of if OP could reasonably foresee he would kill someone. 'Those questions are not what shld have been asked in terms of Doelus Eventualis. That's Doelus Directus.'

 

[zwiebel]

Doelus Polus. This is confusing for a non lawyer.

 

[Val1]

Maybe it is just me, but Nel seems a bit nervous or awkward in his communication with My Lady. Like he KNOWS she is put off or something.

Haha, it's not hard to tell that she's peed off... she looks like she's gonna sentence Nel to 5 yrs... with no chance of parole.

 

[zwiebel]

The_Citizen_Reporter ‏@CitiReporter 2 mins2 minutes ago

#OscarTrial. Nel says questions that should have been asked were never asked. Judge applied the law incorrectly to the facts. #citi - ^ID

 

[JudgeJudi]

The court accepted one of a plethora of versions. It is not able to do this.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Is that Grant sitting next to Nel?

Yes. I believe so.

 

[zwiebel]

Neel: if the court accepted he never wanted to fire, acted on impulse....but the court accepted a different version, the court CONSTRUCTED a different version...that was clearly because of the multiple defenses, which, with the utmost respect, the court shld not have done.

 

[katydid23]

Doelus Polus. This is confusing for a non lawyer.

I bow down to you, Zweibel. I totally gave up trying to make sense of this and just started pasting tweets from BB instead. LOL

 

[zwiebel]

Nel is hammering this point home. To prove murder, he says, the court does not have to believe that Pistorius wanted Steenkamp dead. It is enough to say that he intended to shoot at the person behind the door and that he did so knowing it could have fatal consequences.

The court found that the accused had the intention to shoot, but that he never intended to kill. What, then, was his intention, Nel asks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...ecution-appeal-culpable-homicide-verdict-live