Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

Explain why.

I already explained above. The fact that you don't follow it is exactly what I am talking about.

People go to law school for many years, work in practice and read 1000s of judgements.

I can't cover that ground in an internet comment.

The appeal explains the errors made.

I don't mind one way or the other what you think about the appeal submissions - as they are written by some of RSA's leading legal minds.

Let's see what the SC thinks.

 

[mrjitty]

It's certainly no value trying to discuss anything with someone whose answer to everything is ultimately 'I know better than you so just take my word for it'.

If you want to learn about evidential procedure - then do so!

If you just want to be "right" on the internet - have fun!

 

[mrjitty]

I think Nel said that he didn't accept the defense timeline but that he accepted the phone records.

Well you might remember that the "phone records" are State Exhibits. So Nel was doing a bit more than accepting them :laughing:

The fact that such basics of evidential procedure need to be explained to you doesn't bode well.

 

[mrjitty]

Mr Jitty, I can see why you find all this "cud chewing" frustrating. Your experience far outweighs any input a novice, such as many of us are, and it is good to see you put a line through so much irrelevant and unimportant detail. This is the first case I have followed on here (though I have attended some minor court cases but nothing as important as this case). I can only say I am pleased to come to the same conclusion that Masipa was the cause of a miscarriage of justice and I have learned a lot but still have a long way to go with respect to the importance or not of certain evidence.

I look forward to seeing your input when the SC Appeal starts.

I think some of this stuff is clearer in big commercial trials.

Once you lose the judge - it doesn't matter what clever thing you say next.

The Judge sets sails for what they see as the right verdict - and the evidence suffers accordingly

Such results are hardly surprising at first instance - which is why we have Appeal Courts!

 

[mrjitty]

OP doesn't have a perfect memory of where things were that night.

This is why I can't take you seriously.

The fan was not even plugged in!

I guess OP not only can't remember where it was, he can't remember whether it was turned on

Defence case

Cricket bats sound like gunshots
OP screams like a woman - and like two people!
OP can't remember where stuff was or if it was turned on
A fight was actually TV - or someone else fighting!
When people said it was actually around 3am - it was 10 mins later!
OP can't remember when he turned the alarm off
Reeva got up and had dinner by herself
Ops phone connected to the data network by itself so many times when he was sleeping
The police threw the duvet on the floor and then put the blood stains on it!
The police opened the curtains - then took photos of it
Reeva sneaked out of bed and into the toilet - without OP seeing!
Reeva locked the door - without OP hearing!

Classic bayesian network

... oh dear

 

[GR_Turner]

I already explained above. The fact that you don't follow it is exactly what I am talking about.

People go to law school for many years, work in practice and read 1000s of judgements.

I can't cover that ground in an internet comment.

If this is something that only people with law degrees, who work in practice and have read 1,000s of judgements may understand, then I assume you don't practice in a country with a jury system?

 

[GR_Turner]

Well you might remember that the "phone records" are State Exhibits. So Nel was doing a bit more than accepting them :laughing:

The fact that such basics of evidential procedure need to be explained to you doesn't bode well.

Your snide comments are becoming tiresome. I have never claimed to be a lawyer so if I don't always express myself as you would, it doesn't mean I don't understand rules of evidence in relation to state exhibits.

 

[LemonMousse]

My favourite part of the fans evidence was when Nel suggested to OP that the fan lead wouldn't stretch far enough to plug it in at the wall. "Well, I don't know, "said OP, "I don't know how long the lead is"!!!

Look, brainiac, if it had been plugged in where you say it was, then you wouldn't need the measurements of the lead before deciding whether it could be plugged in there...you'd know it could be, because it WAS. You're the one who plugged it in!

This was shortly before he started using the word "if" when describing his movements..."If I'd run on to the balcony, if I'd moved the curtains aside..." IF? No one ever uses "if" when describing actual events, only hypothetical, imagined ones.

The man is an outright liar.

 

[LemonMousse]

If this is something that only people with law degrees, who work in practice and have read 1,000s of judgements may understand, then I assume you don't practice in a country with a jury system?

Ask any lawyer what they think of the typical jury's grasp of law. Not good, as a rule.

 

[GR_Turner]

My favourite part of the fans evidence was when Nel suggested to OP that the fan lead wouldn't stretch far enough to plug it in at the wall. "Well, I don't know, "said OP, "I don't know how long the lead is"!!!

Look, brainiac, if it had been plugged in where you say it was, then you wouldn't need the measurements of the lead before deciding whether it could be plugged in there...you'd know it could be, because it WAS. You're the one who plugged it in!

This was shortly before he started using the word "if" when describing his movements..."If I'd run on to the balcony, if I'd moved the curtains aside..." IF? No one ever uses "if" when describing actual events, only hypothetical, imagined ones.

The man is an outright liar.

He also referred to Reeva as though she was still alive too at one point which doesn't really suggest someone in total control of his language. were his 'if' statements in response to a hypothetical question from Nel?

 

[GR_Turner]

Ask any lawyer what they think of the typical jury's grasp of law. Not good, as a rule.

And another poster the other day was telling me how much better juries are...

 

[Colin de France]

And another poster the other day was telling me how much better juries are...

...since when has it been an obligation to have a law degree before sitting on a jury.....whose fooling who here !...going by the evidence already discussed on here it's a safe bet a jury would have found him guilty of murder...in anycase it can't be worse than the complete shambles it is now, with a judge fitting the evidence to suit her opinion..

 

[GR_Turner]

This is why I can't take you seriously.

The fan was not even plugged in!

I guess OP not only can't remember where it was, he can't remember whether it was turned on

Defence case

Cricket bats sound like gunshots
OP screams like a woman - and like two people!
OP can't remember where stuff was or if it was turned on
A fight was actually TV - or someone else fighting!
When people said it was actually around 3am - it was 10 mins later!
OP can't remember when he turned the alarm off
Reeva got up and had dinner by herself
Ops phone connected to the data network by itself so many times when he was sleeping
The police threw the duvet on the floor and then put the blood stains on it!
The police opened the curtains - then took photos of it
Reeva sneaked out of bed and into the toilet - without OP seeing!
Reeva locked the door - without OP hearing!

Classic bayesian network

... oh dear

Well, if he can't remember, he can't remember.

The defense proved that bats can sound like gunshots
The defense acoustics expert said that it wasn't impossible for male sounds to be heard as female.
I don't know why you expect OP to remember everything and to do so with total accuracy.
On the state's version it was 17 minutes later.
So what if he can't remember about the alarm, a year after the events?
She could have eaten just before bed or in the middle of the night - why not?
The state didn't claim the phone connections required OP to be awake
No one claimed the police threw the duvet on the floor and put blood on it. You misrepresent the defense case. OP claimed Botha said it was on the bed and that was his memory too. OP claimed the police moved things subsequently and he was clearly wrong in that instance.
Both OP and Van Rensberg went on the balcony before the photos were taken so either could have disturbed the curtains.
Reeva may well have decided to go to the loo and go across the bed while OP wasn't there. You've never had someone suddenly appear from completely the wrong place in your house because you just didn't see or hear them go by?
Do we know how loud the key turning in the lock was or whether someone would hear it as part of a door slam? No.

 

[GR_Turner]

...since when has it been an obligation to have a law degree before sitting on a jury.....whose fooling who here !...going by the evidence already discussed on here it's a safe bet a jury would have found him guilty of murder...in anycase it can't be worse than the complete shambles it is now, with a judge fitting the evidence to suit her opinion..

No one said juries should have law degrees.

 

[mrjitty]

The correct approach to circumstantial evidence.


1. Let's take a piece of the fact pattern. A woman hears an argument between 2-3am - and she thinks its at the accused's house. This is essentially uncontested evidence, and must be accepted by the Court as established. Now of course this piece of evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt there was a murder. However it has now proven the witness heard something that sounded like an argument. It is not legitimate for the Court to say "oh it might have been TV noise". That is wild speculation. Rather - the Court must say - we accept as fact, that the witness heard something like a fight.

2. Now let's take a second point. Medical evidence shows Reeva ate late. This is once more circumstantial evidence. It is not open to the Court to say "this proves nothing because OP might have been asleep". Rather, the Court must accept a strong piece of evidence that Reeva ate late.

3. Now we have a crime scene photo showing the curtains open. A fact not seriously placed in doubt by the defence. Therefore again - it ought to be accepted by the Court that the curtains were open.

4. And next we have a photos showing a duvet on the floor and 5. a fan not plugged in.

Lets cut it there (though there are many more pieces of the puzzle).

The Court must now evaluate the accepted pieces of circumstantial evidence together - not pick them off with individual speculative points.

So the accused contends he woke up, and the victim went to bathroom unknown to him while he re-arranged the fans and it was too dark.

Against his story are 5 uncontested evidential points.

Taken together as a net or web of evidence, this of course makes his story highly improbable - especially when the Court also found he was an unreliable witness.

And this is precisely why the State is appealing on this point.

Simply to dismiss the key circumstantial evidence is logically incorrect.

There is no reliable evidence Reeva went to the toilet unnoticed.

And there are about a dozen uncontested circumstantial points which taken together prove beyond reasonable doubt OP knew where she was.

 

[mrjitty]

Well, if he can't remember, he can't remember.

So despite his detailed evidence about the fans and the curtains and how dark it was - actually the fan was unplugged and the curtains were open and he can't remember.

 

[mrjitty]

You are the one insisting that the defense timeline can't be right because the close neighbours didn't hear any shots or bats after the male crying. So you are also arguing based on small snippets of the timeline that don't make sense to you it seems.

No - I have maintained all along that the Court should deal with the heart of the evidence - i.e. everything leading up to the gunshots which killed the victim and how the accused can credibly explain pumping 4 bullets into his girlfriend with no one else in the house.

However that does not prohibit me from pointing out the logical absurdities with Roux's case.

 

[mrjitty]

If this is something that only people with law degrees, who work in practice and have read 1,000s of judgements may understand, then I assume you don't practice in a country with a jury system?

Each post just makes it more obvious that you don't understand how Courts are required to evaluate circumstantial evidence.

That's why you insist that such RSA's top prosecutor focussed on all the wrong "weak evidence"

Really i would hate to think what a strong case would need to look like.

Video of the shooting?

 

[mrjitty]

Have you considered the implications that are raised if that wasn't Reeva's voice?

This is why circumstantial evidence is so powerful in cases - when viewed as a whole.

It was a loud TV
It was cricket bats
I scream like a woman
The police must have moved the curtains
The police must have unplugged the fan
I didn't say everything was OK
Reeva must have got up to eat by herself
The bath cover got broken some other time
I can't remember how the duvet got on the floor with bloodstains on it
I can't remember when I turned the alarm off
etc

.... so many coincidences!

 

[Trotterly]

The correct approach to circumstantial evidence.


1. Let's take a piece of the fact pattern. A woman hears an argument between 2-3am - and she thinks its at the accused's house. This is essentially uncontested evidence, and must be accepted by the Court as established. Now of course this piece of evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt there was a murder. However it has now proven the witness heard something that sounded like an argument. It is not legitimate for the Court to say "oh it might have been TV noise". That is wild speculation. Rather - the Court must say - we accept as fact, that the witness heard something like a fight.

EVDM did not say that she thought the noise was from the accused's house. She did not know where it came from.
Speculation is only of value if it indicates that the evidence could be interpreted differently.

2. Now let's take a second point. Medical evidence shows Reeva ate late. This is once more circumstantial evidence. It is not open to the Court to say "this proves nothing because OP might have been asleep". Rather, the Court must accept a strong piece of evidence that Reeva ate late.

It's not strong evidence as it is accepted that stomach content is an unreliable indicator.

3. Now we have a crime scene photo showing the curtains open. A fact not seriously placed in doubt by the defence. Therefore again - it ought to be accepted by the Court that the curtains were open.

No one is doubting the photograph just its provenance and it's interpretation

4. And next we have a photos showing a duvet on the floor and 5. a fan not plugged in.

Lets cut it there (though there are many more pieces of the puzzle).

The Court must now evaluate the accepted pieces of circumstantial evidence together - not pick them off with individual speculative points.

Just because the prosecution's case depends on a plethora of circumstantial evidence doesn't make those individual pieces are immune from scrutiny as you seem to believe

So the accused contends he woke up, and the victim went to bathroom unknown to him while he re-arranged the fans and it was too dark.

Against his story are 5 uncontested evidential points.

Taken together as a net or web of evidence, this of course makes his story highly improbable - especially when the Court also found he was an unreliable witness.

And this is precisely why the State is appealing on this point.

Simply to dismiss the key circumstantial evidence is logically incorrect.

Masipa didn't dismiss any key circumstantial evidence unless you think she lied in her judgement.

There is no reliable evidence Reeva went to the toilet unnoticed.

There doesn't even have to be

And there are about a dozen uncontested circumstantial points which taken together prove beyond reasonable doubt OP knew where she was.

Uncontested? lol. Which one's were those?

BIB replies