Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[cottonweaver]

......i can see a lot of potential things possibly happening here......one being that if he gets murder he may well turn around and say "Colin de France is right i only meant to put a hole in the door and i didn't mean to kill her, can we start all over again please" ...............this could well end up going on forever.......

Ha! Come the eve of the 21st , the insomniac Oscar will be googling himself in the wee small hours, with his notepad copying down all your old posts!

 

[JudgeJudi]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman · 1h1 hour ago
#OscarPistorius summary of arguments. BB

The following is from the State's Heads of Argument:

 

[Colin de France]

Ha! Come the eve of the 21st , the insomniac Oscar will be googling himself in the wee small hours, with his notepad copying down all your old posts!

.......i think if i was him i would be curious to know what people are saying about me regarding the case i might even enjoy a little tease........and as this being the best site it's only natural he would come here first...i wonder what name he would use.......in anycase i shall be watching out for new posters from the 21st onwards...............this arrived just ahead of the smoke signal http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/le-scan-...a-condamnation-pour-homicide-involontaire.php...i know it's in French but they've made it sound so simple..........it makes you wonder what all the fuss is about .....

 

[Colin de France]

In november if the truth is less than murder it's only normal he's going to speak out.............or at the very least react .....

 

[cottonweaver]

No electronic tag, says this news report published 2 hours ago.

"Reeva Steenkamp’s killer, Oscar Pistorius, will not have to wear an electronic monitoring device when he is released from prison on Friday, the correctional services department said.

“No, absolutely not,” spokesperson Logan Maistry said on Monday, when asked about the devices, which offenders usually wear around their ankles."


http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/201...-device-for-oscar-says-correctional-services/

Treat with caution as why would they release that info. to the press when they have previously said his terms of h.arrest would not be made public.

 

[cottonweaver]

Only got to see 5 pages of screenshots of the document but anyway here's a handy precis - in tweets from Mandy Weiner ( Pistorian preferred journalist but..)

43 pages of careful, meticulous, dense legal argument bastardised into 5 tweets. Hope it helps.

State argument in short:
1. Judge approached the evidence wrong and excluded evidence. Didn't look at evidence as a whole.

2. If Judge approached evidence properly, wouldn't have found OP version reasonably, possibly true.

3. Judge rejected OP's evidence but then believed his version on 'intention' to shoot. Doesn't fit.

4. Judge applied law on intention wrong. Shouldn't be about intent to shoot 'Reeva' but someone.

5. Court should rely on objective facts, not untruthful version. This would mean murder conviction.

 

[Interested Bystander]

IOL Comments follow:-

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-state-files-heads-of-argument-1.1901221

Oscar: State files heads of argument

The High Court in Pretoria had reserved the following questions of law for the consideration of the Supreme Court of Appeal:

* Whether the principles of dolus eventualis were correctly applied to the accepted facts and the conduct of the accused;

* Whether the Court correctly conceived and applied the legal principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence and/or pertaining to multiple defences by an accused; and

* Whether the Court was correct in its construction and reliance on an alternative version of the accused and that this alternative version was reasonably possibly true.

In its heads of argument, the State claims that the trial court incorrectly applied the principles of dolus eventualis. At the heart of the matter is the question whether Pistorius could foresee that Steenkamp would be killed, but continued shooting, regardless.

“Should it be found that the Court incorrectly applied the principles of dolus eventualis, then a conclusion that the respondent [Pistorius] should have been convicted of murder is, with respect, inescapable”, the State claims in its submission.

“We argue that the only conceivable finding based on the (abovementioned) facts could at a minimum be that, in arming himself, walking to the bathroom with the intention to shoot, whilst knowing that there is a person behind a closed door of a small cubicle and intentionally firing four shots, should be that he intended to kill the person in the cubicle.”

The State goes on to argue that, if the court applied the legal principles pertaining to multiple defences by an accused wrongly, then a finding that the accused’s version was reasonably possibly true would be impossible.

“It is respectfully submitted that an accused’s version must be regarded as ‘inherently improbably’ if ‘he [or she] presents conflicting versions to the court’, so much so that it cannot be reasonably possibly true.”

As for the question of dealing with circumstantial evidence, the State further argues that “not only did the Court a quo exclude relevant evidence, but exhibited a fragmented approach in evaluating the circumstantial evidence.”

 

[cottonweaver]

Karyn Maughan's screenshot shows the Appeal's list of 11 actions in sequence that evidence intent from fetching the gun to firing it.

At 4th screenshot-image down Maughan's page

https://twitter.com/karynmaughan

 

[GR_Turner]

Karyn Maughan's screenshot shows the Appeal's list of 11 actions in sequence that evidence intent from fetching the gun to firing it.

At 4th screenshot-image down Maughan's page

https://twitter.com/karynmaughan

The gun was on the opposite side to where he slept that evening?

 

[Trotterly]

The gun was on the opposite side to where he slept that evening?

I presume the point here is that he normally slept on the right side where he would habitually find his gun but on this occasion had the presence of mind to find it on the opposite side.

Strong stuff.

 

[cottonweaver]

"18.2 He knew where he kept his firearm which was on the opposite side of the bed where he slept on the evening of the incident." Appeal Heads from KMaughan

yep, you read the same as me.

 

[Colin de France]

"18.2 He knew where he kept his firearm which was on the opposite side of the bed where he slept on the evening of the incident." Appeal Heads from KMaughan

yep, you read the same as me.

.....Reeva would have been on the same side as the gun ......amazingly he could find his gun in the dark without Reeva making the slightest form of communication from just a few inches away ......and that didn't ring a bell ....almost as unconceivable as trying to make people believe it .......

 

[GR_Turner]

I presume the point here is that he normally slept on the right side where he would habitually find his gun but on this occasion had the presence of mind to find it on the opposite side.

Strong stuff.

Good point but that's not what it says

 

[aftermath]

I presume the point here is that he normally slept on the right side where he would habitually find his gun but on this occasion had the presence of mind to find it on the opposite side.

Strong stuff.

Is it such strong stuff though? Eg it's all very well saying that the court ignored the sequence of events that led to Reeva standing in front of the door ('fully clothed ' is a potentially misleading description)... When the state barely offered a sequence of events to explain it themselves. Or am I missing something? (I probably am!!)

 

[GR_Turner]

Is it such strong stuff though? Eg it's all very well saying that the court ignored the sequence of events that led to Reeva standing in front of the door ('fully clothed ' is a potentially misleading description)... When the state barely offered a sequence of events to explain it themselves. Or am I missing something? (I probably am!!)

I guess we need to wait for the online version so we can see the context before deciding what to make of it. But yes, the defense did offer a sequence of events that the court accepted, whereas the state didn't really do that. And the sentence after is rather odd: 'This whilst she never uttered a word. is conceivably more devastating.'

 

[mrjitty]

Whatever your view on guilt/innocence the appeal shows what happens when a judge authors a technically poor judgement.

She has given the state so many opportunities thanks to her sloppy handling of the law and lazy approach to dealing with key facts.

 

[Colin de France]

Is it such strong stuff though? Eg it's all very well saying that the court ignored the sequence of events that led to Reeva standing in front of the door ('fully clothed ' is a potentially misleading description)... When the state barely offered a sequence of events to explain it themselves. Or am I missing something? (I probably am!!)

.....you're quite right....it's all a question of perspective..........whether he be guilty or innocent there needs to be a certain amount of proof to back it up.....i can't see how the state can proceed with what it has ...certainly not murder they've more chance proving manslaughter.....how can they possibly say this "We argue that the only conceivable finding based on the (abovementioned) facts could at a minimum be that, in arming himself, walking to the bathroom with the intention to shoot"...........there has to be a certain amount of proof before using the word "intention", after the fact is just not good enough........it's all very lightweight stuff....

 

[Colin de France]

Whatever your view on guilt/innocence the appeal shows what happens when a judge authors a technically poor judgement.

She has given the state so many opportunities thanks to her sloppy handling of the law and lazy approach to dealing with key facts.

......i think the quality of Masipas work is on par with that of the police and the prosecution........

 

[mrjitty]

IOL Comments follow:-

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-state-files-heads-of-argument-1.1901221

Oscar: State files heads of argument

The High Court in Pretoria had reserved the following questions of law for the consideration of the Supreme Court of Appeal:

* Whether the principles of dolus eventualis were correctly applied to the accepted facts and the conduct of the accused;

* Whether the Court correctly conceived and applied the legal principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence and/or pertaining to multiple defences by an accused; and

* Whether the Court was correct in its construction and reliance on an alternative version of the accused and that this alternative version was reasonably possibly true.

In its heads of argument, the State claims that the trial court incorrectly applied the principles of dolus eventualis. At the heart of the matter is the question whether Pistorius could foresee that Steenkamp would be killed, but continued shooting, regardless.

“Should it be found that the Court incorrectly applied the principles of dolus eventualis, then a conclusion that the respondent [Pistorius] should have been convicted of murder is, with respect, inescapable”, the State claims in its submission.

“We argue that the only conceivable finding based on the (abovementioned) facts could at a minimum be that, in arming himself, walking to the bathroom with the intention to shoot, whilst knowing that there is a person behind a closed door of a small cubicle and intentionally firing four shots, should be that he intended to kill the person in the cubicle.”

The State goes on to argue that, if the court applied the legal principles pertaining to multiple defences by an accused wrongly, then a finding that the accused’s version was reasonably possibly true would be impossible.

“It is respectfully submitted that an accused’s version must be regarded as ‘inherently improbably’ if ‘he [or she] presents conflicting versions to the court’, so much so that it cannot be reasonably possibly true.”

As for the question of dealing with circumstantial evidence, the State further argues that “not only did the Court a quo exclude relevant evidence, but exhibited a fragmented approach in evaluating the circumstantial evidence.”

Strong appeal IMO.

 

[Colin de France]

Strong appeal IMO.

....strong words but nothing to back it up ............and that's putting it objectively.........if the state has any chance at all it will be around the screams ......believing him to be guilty is just not enough....