Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

Just in case anyone reading this thread cannot remember what happened, here is an article covering why Carl was not prosecuted and many of you will remember a sheaf of papers being removed from the trial papers.

http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/How-Carl-Pistorius-dodged-a-charge-20150429

Yes, I read that at the time. It's full of maybes and mights and other insinuations based on undisclosed sources. If it's true, at the very least, you have to wonder why the state were prepared to forego Carl's prosecution for the sake of keeping the lead detective off the stand! We have a prosecution here who were too scared to put the policeman in charge of the crime scene and initial investigation on the stand for fear of what he would say - to the extent of thinking it would 'sink their case'. What could that mean other than that the state had something to hide.

I have also wondered how it is that a computer savvy individual such as Carl would have used his own easily traceable computer to deliberately wipe data and carried his brother's phone with him if it was his intention to do something illegal.

 

[GR_Turner]

tosh!

No, Trotterly is right. If it was left out it was with good reason. Either it didn't really matter or was something the state couldn't prove, or the state were trying to hide something by not wishing Botha on the stand. This hardly casts the state in a good light.

 

[Colin de France]

I watched all of the trial and there was no evidence presented that proved any of your suspicions. The only place that any of this matters was in the trial. That's why we have trials rather than just letting the townspeople decide what they think based on their own views, the weather, the runes or peering at tea leaves.

It was left out of the trial for a very good reason - it means nothing.

..in your country it is the "townspeople" who decide, it's called a jury ....peering at tea leaves was what you were doing instead of watching the trial ...

 

[Interested Bystander]

No, Trotterly is right. If it was left out it was with good reason. Either it didn't really matter or was something the state couldn't prove, or the state were trying to hide something by not wishing Botha on the stand. This hardly casts the state in a good light.

I think it was left out because the Prosecution made the wrong decision by thinking Botha might weaken their case and nothing to do with not enough evidence on CP. The CP papers were already in the case documents and if you remember they were removed (seen on court video) after a meeting between Roux and Nel.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I was referring to the deliberate intention to wipe data. The state didn't make any allegation as to why the phone was removed or say anything at all about it being wiped to the court so I'm not sure how you can conclude that Masipa was naive. She was working with what the state gave her. If anything, it indicates only that the police didn't properly secure the scene in the first instance or perhaps that the state's case was a bit of a mess.

Your question about whether I'm interested in finding the truth or discussing whether the state made their case or not is very interesting as it shows that you think there is a distinction. The problem with saying that the phone wiping was deliberate and proves something is that we don't know the facts and even if we did we haven't heard the other side of the story. How can you hope to discover 'the truth' if you disregard the most basic rules of evidence? - one side openly and clearly produces their evidence in court and the other side questions it or produces their own evidence to rebut in court.

Yes, of course, I agree I have no grounds on that point to accuse Masipa of being naive.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I watched all of the trial and there was no evidence presented that proved any of your suspicions. The only place that any of this matters was in the trial. That's why we have trials rather than just letting the townspeople decide what they think based on their own views, the weather, the runes or peering at tea leaves.

It was left out of the trial for a very good reason - it means nothing.

But in many countries, townspeople are usually the people who do decide the fate of the accused and I feel fairly sure, if there had been a jury, there would have been a completely different outcome to the trial.

 

[GR_Turner]

But in many countries, townspeople are usually the people who do decide the fate of the accused and I feel fairly sure, if there had been a jury, there would have been a completely different outcome to the trial.

You can't know that. I doubt it as not everyone has simply believed everything the state says.

 

[soozieqtips]

I think it was left out because the Prosecution made the wrong decision by thinking Botha might weaken their case and nothing to do with not enough evidence on CP. The CP papers were already in the case documents and if you remember they were removed (seen on court video) after a meeting between Roux and Nel.

Also, do you remember Uncle A telling the press that as far as he was aware, nothing of relevance to the trial had been deleted. He didn't say that nothing had been deleted? And who did he think he was to determine what constituted "relevance" to the trial? He's the killer's flipping uncle.

 

[Colin de France]

You can't know that. I doubt it as not everyone has simply believed everything the state says.

...but i think it's fair to say the majority think he's guilty of murder....and that Masipa was biased and that the police and the prosecution did a poor job and that Pistorius lied through his teeth and into his bucket and so on and so on...just waiting for the next round to put it all right ...

 

[Interested Bystander]

You can't know that. I doubt it as not everyone has simply believed everything the state says.

I did say I feel it not know it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Also, do you remember Uncle A telling the press that as far as he was aware, nothing of relevance to the trial had been deleted. He didn't say that nothing had been deleted? And who did he think he was to determine what constituted "relevance" to the trial? He's the killer's flipping uncle.

I do. An admission the phone was wiped by a family member. A point completely lost on a lot of people.

Given the reaction to the verdict from the majority of well known legal eagles in SA that Masipa got it wrong and OP was indeed guilty of murder, I feel happy that my impression is the same. However, I do see problems even in the upcoming appeal because I still believe there is a rule for the rich white and one for the black community in SA and it is totally unacceptable that this should be the case. I am hoping the prosecution argue their case more efficiently at the Appeal but have lingering doubts it will do much good.

 

[GR_Turner]

I think it was left out because the Prosecution made the wrong decision by thinking Botha might weaken their case and nothing to do with not enough evidence on CP. The CP papers were already in the case documents and if you remember they were removed (seen on court video) after a meeting between Roux and Nel.

You may be right but I didn't get that impression from the section about this in the book. I don't know whether we can be sure about that from a video but it's possible. But the very fact that they were willing to not charge him or even mention this to the court suggests that they were extremely concerned about Botha, the police lead investigator.

 

[GR_Turner]

...but i think it's fair to say the majority think he's guilty of murder....and that Masipa was biased and that the police and the prosecution did a poor job and that Pistorius lied through his teeth and into his bucket and so on and so on...just waiting for the next round to put it all right ...

You really think this way? Who are the majority you refer to and what do they base their views on? Most people didn't have the time and interest to follow the entire evidence and so they are basing their opinions on snippets of evidence seen on news, other people's opinions and the incredibly biased media. Look at the media coverage of late. Shock, horror - only 10 months for murder/killing your girlfriend. The ANCWL have been at it again issuing a statement saying that this sends out the wrong message that you can murder your girlfriend and get away with it. However, if the media and the ANCWL reported properly that the judge concluded that this was not domestic violence but actually someone trying to defend himself then there would be no wrong message sent out at all. So what is the view of the 'majority' worth when it is based on emotion and not the evidence?

 

[GR_Turner]

I do. An admission the phone was wiped by a family member. A point completely lost on a lot of people.

Given the reaction to the verdict from the majority of well known legal eagles in SA that Masipa got it wrong and OP was indeed guilty of murder, I feel happy that my impression is the same. However, I do see problems even in the upcoming appeal because I still believe there is a rule for the rich white and one for the black community in SA and it is totally unacceptable that this should be the case. I am hoping the prosecution argue their case more efficiently at the Appeal but have lingering doubts it will do much good.

There are some SA legal eagles who think it was CH and not DE or DD though and many more who basically don't really know, I suspect. You are already getting yourself ready for the SCA to disagree with you it seems by preparing your next line of argument - he got away with it because he's white and rich or presumably they will have been bribed or something. Because it's impossible that you could just be mistaken.

 

[Interested Bystander]

There are some SA legal eagles who think it was CH and not DE or DD though and many more who basically don't really know, I suspect. You are already getting yourself ready for the SCA to disagree with you it seems by preparing your next line of argument - he got away with it because he's white and rich or presumably they will have been bribed or something. Because it's impossible that you could just be mistaken.

Yes a few legal eagles think it was CH. My opinion has nothing to do with bribery but everything to do with inequality between White SAs and Black SAs. I am sure you have read of the poor soul who spent 8 years in prison, in a wheelchair, (the same prison that OP is now in I think) waiting for his case to come to trial and he was accused of robbery not murder. OP was given bail even though charged with murder. When sent to prison he was put into the safe prison hospital wing. The other poor chap was in with the rest of the criminals, even though he was crippled, for the whole 8 years. That is what I call preferential treatment for being white and rich.

I don't think Nel proved to be the excellent prosecutor most of us thought he would be. I think wrong decisions were taken along the way. I also think Roux was ingratiating towards the judge. Always good to 'butter up' the judge and get her on your side! He was devious too. How many times was he going to provide evidence in favour of OP which never materialised.

Just like you, I don't think I am mistaken but I take comfort that in the poll that was taken on here 80 per cent thought he was guilty of murder and we would, in normal circumstances and in most countries, be the ones determining his guilt or otherwise.

I have absolutely no doubt he shot in anger, he knew it was Reeva, he is a proven liar with a history of violent scrapes and inappropriate gun use and sooner or later he was going to get into a great deal of trouble.

 

[WilliamMunter]

You really think this way? Who are the majority you refer to and what do they base their views on? Most people didn't have the time and interest to follow the entire evidence and so they are basing their opinions on snippets of evidence seen on news, other people's opinions and the incredibly biased media. Look at the media coverage of late. Shock, horror - only 10 months for murder/killing your girlfriend. The ANCWL have been at it again issuing a statement saying that this sends out the wrong message that you can murder your girlfriend and get away with it. However, if the media and the ANCWL reported properly that the judge concluded that this was not domestic violence but actually someone trying to defend himself then there would be no wrong message sent out at all. So what is the view of the 'majority' worth when it is based on emotion and not the evidence?

BIB

Not sure what you mean by "at it again" but I have seen no such statement from the ANCWL. Please post the source.

 

[Trotterly]

Yes a few legal eagles think it was CH. My opinion has nothing to do with bribery but everything to do with inequality between White SAs and Black SAs. I am sure you have read of the poor soul who spent 8 years in prison, in a wheelchair, (the same prison that OP is now in I think) waiting for his case to come to trial and he was accused of robbery not murder. OP was given bail even though charged with murder. When sent to prison he was put into the safe prison hospital wing. The other poor chap was in with the rest of the criminals, even though he was crippled, for the whole 8 years. That is what I call preferential treatment for being white and rich.

I don't think Nel proved to be the excellent prosecutor most of us thought he would be. I think wrong decisions were taken along the way. I also think Roux was ingratiating towards the judge. Always good to 'butter up' the judge and get her on your side! He was devious too. How many times was he going to provide evidence in favour of OP which never materialised.

Just like you, I don't think I am mistaken but I take comfort that in the poll that was taken on here 80 per cent thought he was guilty of murder and we would, in normal circumstances and in most countries, be the ones determining his guilt or otherwise.

I have absolutely no doubt he shot in anger, he knew it was Reeva, he is a proven liar with a history of violent scrapes and inappropriate gun use and sooner or later he was going to get into a great deal of trouble.

That's 8/10 or 10/12 jurors. Normally a "not guilty" then.

I think that sums up perfectly why the "guilty" crowd cannot see the wood for the trees.

 

[Interested Bystander]

That's 8/10 or 10/12 jurors. Normally a "not guilty" then.

I think that sums up perfectly why the "guilty" crowd cannot see the wood for the trees.

Oh dear, wrong again.

United Kingdom
England and Wales
In England and Wales a majority of 10–2 (10–1 if only eleven jurors remain) is needed for a verdict; failure to reach this may lead to a retrial.
Initially, the jury will be directed to try to reach a unanimous verdict. If they fail to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge may later (after not less than two hours[SUP][3][/SUP]) give directions that a majority verdict will be acceptable, but still no less than ten to two, although the jury should continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict if possible.


In Spain the majority need only be 9-5.


I do not know how the majority system works in other countries.

 

[Trotterly]

Oh dear, wrong again.

United Kingdom
England and Wales
In England and Wales a majority of 10–2 (10–1 if only eleven jurors remain) is needed for a verdict; failure to reach this may lead to a retrial.
Initially, the jury will be directed to try to reach a unanimous verdict. If they fail to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge may later (after not less than two hours[SUP][3][/SUP]) give directions that a majority verdict will be acceptable, but still no less than ten to two, although the jury should continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict if possible.


In Spain the majority need only be 9-5.


I do not know how the majority system works in other countries.

That's in the UK not in the US.

 

[Interested Bystander]

That's in the UK not in the US.

I did point out the information was for the UK . In Scotland it is different again. in the U.S. Majority verdicts are used but not in all States and different ratios exist.