Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[KateB]

Parole Board Recommends Oscar Pistorius Be Released In August
June 08, 2015
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ommends-oscar-pistorius-be-released-in-august

Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide, which The Guardian compares to manslaughter. The South African broadcaster eNCA reports that prosecutors are appealing that conviction. They're asking a court to convict him, instead, of murder, which carries a longer sentence.

As eNCA reports, there is a possibility that Pistorius could be out on parole and then, if prosecutors are successful, he could be sent back to prison.

Oscar Pistorius nearly home free
2015-08-02
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-Pistorius-nearly-home-free-20150802

Oscar Pistorius’ lawyers have won the latest round of his legal battles.

Previous thread:
Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

Link to Oscar Pistorius Forum Index: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?536-Oscar-Pistorius

 

[KateB]

Please continue here. Thanks.

 

[KarenUK]

Good morning all - I read somewhere that to have a healthy diet your plate of food had to include many different colours.... This is therefore healthy and is my offering to celebrate the new thread



I haven't posted for a while on here, is there any news on the appeal?

 

[lithgow1]

That cake looks as lurid as some of the OP tabloid stories! There is some info on the appeal on the last pages of the previous thread.

I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case and b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case. They were good questions from cottonweaver IIRC so I hope they get answered. I hate it when there is good discussion happening and then a new thread is opened as they often get lost then.

PS Sooziqtips also had a good question about why is there no criticism of Roger Dixon for, say, using a model four inches shorter than OP on his stumps for the photos of what the Stipps could have seen. His excuse (It was an oversight m`lady) was so weak that IIRC Nel accused him of deliberately trying to mislead the court and I for one cannot see any other interpretation. It is one thing to make excuses for Pistorius` behaviour but quite another for a so-called expert witness to indulge in such trickery.

 

[aftermath]

That cake looks as lurid as some of the OP tabloid stories! There is some info on the appeal on the last pages of the previous thread.

I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case and b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case. They were good questions from cottonweaver IIRC so I hope they get answered. I hate it when there is good discussion happening and then a new thread is opened as they often get lost then.

PS Sooziqtips also had a good question about why is there no criticism of Roger Dixon for, say, using a model four inches shorter than OP on his stumps for the photos of what the Stipps could have seen. His excuse (It was an oversight m`lady) was so weak that IIRC Nel accused him of deliberately trying to mislead the court and I for one cannot see any other interpretation. It is one thing to make excuses for Pistorius` behaviour but quite another for a so-called expert witness to indulge in such trickery.

Sorry - didn't know how to answer a post from an earlier thread! Will probably need to split my response into three to avoid an essay!

 

[lithgow1]

Sorry - didn't know how to answer a post from an earlier thread! Will probably need to split my response into three to avoid an essay!

No worries. I don`t know how to do that either! Like I say it is a bit annoying when a new thread opens and stuff from the old one tends to get lost. They weren`t my questions in any case, but I thought they were good ones.

 

[Trotterly]

That cake looks as lurid as some of the OP tabloid stories! There is some info on the appeal on the last pages of the previous thread.

I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case and b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case. They were good questions from cottonweaver IIRC so I hope they get answered. I hate it when there is good discussion happening and then a new thread is opened as they often get lost then.

PS Sooziqtips also had a good question about why is there no criticism of Roger Dixon for, say, using a model four inches shorter than OP on his stumps for the photos of what the Stipps could have seen. His excuse (It was an oversight m`lady) was so weak that IIRC Nel accused him of deliberately trying to mislead the court and I for one cannot see any other interpretation. It is one thing to make excuses for Pistorius` behaviour but quite another for a so-called expert witness to indulge in such trickery.

I read something about massive holes in the defence case. Just thought I would add that the defence case can have many holes, large and small. It doesn't have to be a complete picture or a pile of feathers or anything else other than to create the necessary doubt about the state's case. This needs to be grasped in order to make sense of what will happen during the appeal. Otherwise there will be more frustration and anger.

 

[aftermath]

I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case.

(snipped)

There is always a critical eye on the defence case - but ultimately they just had to create reasonable doubt whereas the state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Marfa Lights]

The best thing about a new thread is the lovely food presentation! Thank you KarenUK.

I was looking online for any updates on the appeal and came across this older website/blog put together by a couple of U.S. law students. Thought I might post it for the wonderful photos of Reeva if nothing else.

https://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/dolus-eventualis-and-dumbass-eventualis-fully-explained/

Like everyone else, I am interested in clarifying Masipa's application of Dolus eventualis-- particularly regarding the distinction she might have been trying to make (and muddled up IMO) about the objective vs. subjective test that would apply to the correct legal determination.

Here's a twitter exchange from back in September of 2014 that explains what I mean:

Mandy Wiener
‏@MandyWiener
Dolus eventualis is 'did' foresee, culp is 'should have'. Masipa says she believes OP didn't foresee consequences. It's a subjective test.
5:38 AM - 11 Sep 2014

Wessel van Rensburg ‏@wildebees Sep 11
@MandyWiener correct, but she restricted the foresee question to Reeva, should apply to intruder as well @PikkieGreeff


So, is this really the essence of what happened with Masipa's ruling (maybe we could get some help from our legal eagles on here)-- did she make some kind of mash up in logic by ruling first that OP could not be guilty of DE because he could not have foreseen that the deceased (Reeva) was behind the toilet door because he believed she was in the bedroom, ergo NOT GUILTY OF DE (this would more appropriately apply to DD, I would think)?

And then she goes on to let him off on DE for the death of whoever was behind the door (the imaginary intruder in his version) by saying the State did not prove that Oscar subjectively DID FORESEE firing four Black Talon-type rounds into a toilet cubicle would likely result in the death of whoever was behind the door. So she apparently applied only the more objective test that he merely SHOULD HAVE FORESEEN which led to her verdict of CH.

Is this what happened? Did Masipa ultimately feel like the State failed to prove Oscar intended to kill the person behind the door?

Is this because she accepted his claims that he "fired without thinking"? Or because he felt vulnerable and he had an awful fright therefore he could not be held responsible for deliberately arming himself, approaching the noise, and firing off four rounds at an (assumed) intruder trapped in a tiny enclosed space?? Even though he SHOULD HAVE known this (CH) would likely result death, she finds that he DID NOT realize this (DE)??

Is this what it gets down to? Help enlighten me a little more, please because her determination whether or not the accused DID NOT KNOW or "COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN" his actions would result in the death of the person behind the door continues to boggles the mind. I know the State has based their appeal in part on the claim that Masipa gave too much weight to his disability and vulnerability. How else could she have arrived at that decision?

Is this the crux of the appeal in your opinion?

 

[cottonweaver]

Originally Posted by aftermath
But I am definitely interested in testing and scrutinising the state's case and seeing if there are other viable alternative explanations (not excuses)

snipped

I can't understand this just because you have said many times that Justice was done in this case so there is no injustice served.
And you have said that the State failed to prove theirs many times too. So why are you still interested in scrutinising the "failed" State's case?

Secondly, a separate point for me is why haven't you (plural, not just you ) shown any interest in scrutinising the issues with the Defence's case?
Most of the people who post here seem to be pretty sceptical by nature, not just about OP's version etc.




Here's the posts from the last page of thread 62, best paste I could do, will take the liberty of fetching Soozie's
p.s. my post wasn't just directed at aftermath - it was all the truth and justice seekers out there

 

[Colin de France]

The best thing about a new thread is the lovely food presentation! Thank you KarenUK.

I was looking online for any updates on the appeal and came across this older website/blog put together by a couple of U.S. law students. Thought I might post it for the wonderful photos of Reeva if nothing else.

https://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com/dolus-eventualis-and-dumbass-eventualis-fully-explained/

Like everyone else, I am interested in clarifying Masipa's application of Dolus eventualis-- particularly regarding the distinction she might have been trying to make (and muddled up IMO) about the objective vs. subjective test that would apply to the correct legal determination.

Here's a twitter exchange from back in September of 2014 that explains what I mean:

Mandy Wiener
‏@MandyWiener
Dolus eventualis is 'did' foresee, culp is 'should have'. Masipa says she believes OP didn't foresee consequences. It's a subjective test.
5:38 AM - 11 Sep 2014

Wessel van Rensburg ‏@wildebees Sep 11
@MandyWiener correct, but she restricted the foresee question to Reeva, should apply to intruder as well @PikkieGreeff


So, is this really the essence of what happened with Masipa's ruling (maybe we could get some help from our legal eagles on here)-- did she make some kind of mash up in logic by ruling first that OP could not be guilty of DE because he could not have foreseen that the deceased (Reeva) was behind the toilet door because he believed she was in the bedroom, ergo NOT GUILTY OF DE?

And then she goes on to let him off on DE for the death of whoever was behind the door (the imaginary intruder in his version) by saying the State did not prove that Oscar subjectively DID FORESEE firing four Black Talon-type rounds into a toilet cubicle would likely result in the death of whoever was behind the door. So she apparently applied only the more objective test that he merely SHOULD HAVE FORESEEN which led to her verdict of CH.

Is this what happened? Did Masipa ultimately feel like the State failed to prove Oscar intended to kill the person behind the door?

Is this because she accepted his claims that he "fired without thinking"? Or because he felt vulnerable and he had an awful fright therefore he could not be held responsible for deliberately arming himself, approaching the noise, and firing off four rounds at an (assumed) intruder trapped in a tiny enclosed space?? Even though he SHOULD HAVE (CH) known this would likely result death, she finds that he DID NOT (DE) realize this??

Is this what it gets down to? Help enlighten me a little more, please because her determination whether or not the accused DID NOT KNOW or "COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN" his actions would result in the death of the person behind the door continues to boggles the mind. I know the State has based their appeal in part on the claim that Masipa gave too much weight to his disability and vulnerability. How else could she have arrived at that decision?

Is this the crux of the appeal in your opinion?

....i think she seriously slipped up there..... by Pistorius's own declaration he was afraid of shooting anywhere else in fear of the bullets bouncing round to kill himself....thus he had already thought out the conséquences of shooting and what the result may be......writing to Nel right now..;

 

[cottonweaver]

BIB - that's a very good point. If people claim to be interested in justice, you'd think the massive holes in the defence would spark a little interest too, but no. How about Roger Dixon misleading the court when he used a shorter model to demonstrate what could be seen through the bathroom window by the Stipps? I know supporters will come up with some kind of excuse, but I think it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the Stipps. Dixon was supposed to be an expert for goodness sake, and he used a model 4 inches shorter!


Nel: You're giving the court an indication of how much the accused would have been visible on his stumps... then you give us a photograph that does not reflect that..... why would you hand in that photograph.... or... even take that photograph

Dixon: I'm not trying to mislead the court Milady

Nel: That's what I'm testing... that's what I'm testing. You mentioned the word, Mr Dixon (pause). What I don't understand... if that's what you wanted to point out... why would you not ensure... that the person on his knees... stands on something, er, is lifted... to scale, because you're an expert. Why wouldn't you make sure that his height... is exactly... the height of Mr Pistorius on his stumps. Why would you not do that?

Dixon - Milady... it is something I omitted. I overlooked it at the time.

Soozie - if you wish to remove...please post and i will delete

 

[Marfa Lights]

....i think she seriously slipped up there..... by Pistorius's own declaration he was afraid of shooting anywhere else in fear of the bullets bouncing round to kill himself....thus he had already thought out the conséquences of shooting and what the result may be......

That's exactly what I thought when I heard his testimony about his concern for ricochet bullets if he fired a warning shot into the shower or elsewhere in the bathroom. I could feel Roux cringe too.

 

[Colin de France]

That's exactly what I thought when I heard his testimony about his concern for ricochet bullets if he fired a warning shot into the shower or elsewhere in the bathroom. I could feel Roux cringe too.

....this point is being overlooked too much........

 

[soozieqtips]

Soozie - if you wish to remove...please post and i will delete

That's fine. I was going to copy it over anyway but you've saved me the trouble :smile:

 

[aftermath]

b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case.

For what it's worth some of the reasons I find myself posting are because the topic interests me enough to want to discuss it with others who share that interest. And because I find it both fascinating and worrying that so many people can't/won't see the reasonable doubt. And because the pervasive influence of the media and social media needs to have a countering balance somewhere. (because 'justice for reeva' does not mean the public enjoyment of the demolition of a man. It means finding out the the truth and holding him to account for it) And because it is interesting how people can read/watch the same things and come to such different interpretations. And because - since the defence version is unlikely (but not impossible) in places, - assessing and reassessing my own views against those who don't agree with me is a good test for the validity of the conclusions I have drawn.

 

[Colin de France]

For what it's worth some of the reasons I find myself posting are because the topic interests me enough to want to discuss it with others who share that interest. And because I find it both fascinating and worrying that so many people can't/won't see the reasonable doubt. And because the pervasive influence of the media and social media needs to have a countering balance somewhere. (because 'justice for reeva' does not mean the public enjoyment of the demolition of a man. It means finding out the the truth and holding him to account for it) And because it is interesting how people can read/watch the same things and come to such different interpretations. And because - since the defence version is unlikely (but not impossible) in places, - assessing and reassessing my own views against those who don't agree with me is a good test for the validity of the conclusions I have drawn.

.....that's all very well......but try taking on issue's such as that mentioned in post 11....objectively..;

 

[aftermath]

Snipped...


PS Sooziqtips also had a good question about why is there no criticism of Roger Dixon for, say, using a model four inches shorter than OP on his stumps for the photos of what the Stipps could have seen. His excuse (It was an oversight m`lady) was so weak that IIRC Nel accused him of deliberately trying to mislead the court and I for one cannot see any other interpretation. It is one thing to make excuses for Pistorius` behaviour but quite another for a so-called expert witness to indulge in such trickery.

Dixon wasn't a great witness, but neither was he the disaster he has been made out to be. IMO.

Re the photos... Was his asking someone to kneel much different to vermeulen's investigation into whether the cricket bat could have been swung with force on prosthetics or stumps?

Yes- of course he should have ensured the model was at the correct height, but at least he explored the legs-on or legs-off issue . Why didn't the state offer their own carefully measured photographic evidence to show that Dr Stipp in all probability saw pistorius still just on his stumps?

 

[Trotterly]

That's exactly what I thought when I heard his testimony about his concern for ricochet bullets if he fired a warning shot into the shower or elsewhere in the bathroom. I could feel Roux cringe too.

When he wasn't in the situation of being in fear of his life because of an imminent attack - as he described - it was obvious to him or anyone else that firing in that space was extremely dangerous, but was he thinking it at the time? I think all his attention was on the intruder from the moment that window opened.

 

[aftermath]

.....that's all very well......but try taking on issue's such as that mentioned in post 11....objectively..;

Please don't tell me what to do. I said to lithgow1 that I would respond to his/her post in three parts- which I have now done.