Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[cottonweaver]

Ricochet is in there: page 30

"In summary, having regard to the afore-going case-law and authority, it is respectfully
submitted that dolus eventualis is proved if the accused foresees a risk of death,
however slight, but nevertheless decides to take a chance and gambles with the life of
the deceased reckless to the consequences. It is respectfully submitted that such a state
of mind on the part of the accused can be inferred objectively from the totality of all the
facts.

Having refrained from quoting the record, it is, with respect apt to quote the respondent’s
own views as to the foreseeability in relation to dolus eventualis:

OP :“… M”Lady, if I had fired a shot into the shower, it would have ricocheted and
possibly hit me … Firing into that door, in the small toilet, a ricochet of that
ammunition would be possible and it would hit someone? Am I right? --- That is
correct, M’Lady…”

and a further Oscar quote below, speaking retrospectively

 

[soozieqtips]

It is still an emotive use of the word though -for dramatic emphasis.

There doesn't have to be an ulterior motive for the chosen adjective. "Devastating" can simply mean 'damaging'. I notice you don't scrutinise OP's words with such vigour.

 

[cottonweaver]

what all the legal experts have been saying since the day after the judgment:

"It was never our argument that an accused’s untruthful evidence should lead to his
conviction117. Our respectful argument is that if an accused’s evidence is rejected as
untruthful the court will rely on the objective facts. This in casu would have resulted in
a conviction on murder"

 

[aftermath]

There doesn't have to be an ulterior motive for the chosen adjective. "Devastating" can simply mean 'damaging'. I notice you don't scrutinise OP's words with such vigour.

Has pistorius penned some kind of legal argument?
'damaging' is a more emotionally neutral word than 'devastating', IMO, of course

 

[aftermath]

I keep reading all this "too emotional" and I have found it ironic.

Here's an emotive piece by journalist RANJENI MUNUSAMY focussing on the histrionic emotionalism employed by the Defence in the trial above and beyond that displayed by Pistorius and his bucket...

"You’ve got to hand it to Oscar’s Pistorius’ legal team for coming up with four people willing to take the oath and stand in court to testify how the convicted athlete was a truly special human being who did not deserve to go to prison. Dr Lore Hartzenburg, who has been counselling Pistorius since he shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013, told the court what an awful time he has been having, crying, vomiting and being tormented by the media.

“We are left with a broken man who has lost everything,” she said. And apparently this professional counsellor even cried in court when Pistorius had to take off his prosthesis during a demonstration. Hartzenberg said Pistorius had told her he would like to work at his uncle Arnold’s school in Mozambique, helping children. Perhaps he’d get time to sip cocktails at Bazaruto while he’s there, who knows.

Do the children have a choice in deciding whether a convicted killer should be foisted on them, or like everything else, does Pistorius’ sense of entitlement allow him to go to the rescue of black African waifs?

Hartzenberg pities his woeful state and felt that his ability to grieve had been hampered by negative media reports. He has suffered enough, and the big bad media should leave him alone. After killing someone.

There really aren’t enough expletives in the world to respond to this amount of ********.

But incredibly, the sentencing hearing rolled downhill from there. A social worker in the Department of Correctional Services, Joel Maringa, was trotted out next. He recommended a three-year sentence of correctional supervision, with two eight-hour days of cleaning work a month. For killing someone.

Why? Because of the trauma he has suffered. Because of his disability. And because he could still play a productive role in society. According to Maringa, being placed under house arrest is not a lighter sentence. Perhaps. If he were staying in a shack in Alexandra township where giants rats run the hood and eat parts of babies, that is. His uncle’s three-story Waterkloof mansion, however, might be a tad more luxurious than the average prison cell that every other South African citizen would be frog-marched into if they killed someone. But, you see, Pistorius “should not be destroyed”, according to Maringa, and needs to be integrated back into society."

You're right: a deliberately emotive piece of 'journalism'

 

[soozieqtips]

Has pistorius penned some kind of legal argument?
'damaging' is a more emotionally neutral word than 'devastating', IMO, of course

Lots of emotive words in OP's sworn affidavit, such as terror, vulnerable, trapped, horror, grave danger. Have you applied the same criticism to those words as you have to Nel's? No. You most certainly have not.

Any reason why?

 

[lithgow1]

You're right: a deliberately emotive piece of 'journalism'

Yes it is an emotive piece of journalism but why not address some of the issues raised, such as the counsellor crying in court?

Was she the same one who would rush to hold him in the breaks? The same one who also cried? Funny how a journalist is criticised for using emotive language but a supposedly professional counsellor is given a pass for weeping over her client in a court of law.

 

[lithgow1]

Lots of emotive words in OP's sworn affidavit, such as terror, vulnerable, trapped, horror, grave danger. Have you applied the same criticism to those words as you have to Nel's? No. You most certainly have not.

Any reason why?

And I am sure the defence response will only contain cold, clinical, legal language, with no strong adjectives or emotionally-laden words.

 

[cottonweaver]

You're right: a deliberately emotive piece of 'journalism'

But you missed the point- but I can understand that.

 

[Coldpizza]

Discussion thread for OP's pending release.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...be-under-house-arrest&p=12006916#post12006916

 

[aftermath]

Lots of emotive words in OP's sworn affidavit, such as terror, vulnerable, trapped, horror, grave danger. Have you applied the same criticism to those words as you have to Nel's? No. You most certainly have not.

Any reason why?

Umm...yes, actually.

Can you not see there is a difference between someone's sworn affidavit about an incident they were involved in, and a prosecution lawyer's official appeal document?!

 

[cottonweaver]

I know you can't go a day without the wisdom of "your Kelly"

I just came across this interview transcript whilst looking for something more sensible.

You can see where some of this stuff comes from.
No, it's not worth more than a quick skim read.

https://supportforoscar.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/kelly-phelps-interview-transcript/

 

[aftermath]

And I am sure the defence response will only contain cold, clinical, legal language, with no strong adjectives or emotionally-laden words.

Of course it will!

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes it is an emotive piece of journalism but why not address some of the issues raised, such as the counsellor crying in court?

Was she the same one who would rush to hold him in the breaks? The same one who also cried? Funny how a journalist is criticised for using emotive language but a supposedly professional counsellor is given a pass for weeping over her client in a court of law.

BIB - oh yes, that was just weird.

 

[aftermath]

But you missed the point- but I can understand that.

Haha- I didn't miss the point.. But the content and style of the article made a new one...

 

[aftermath]

Yes it is an emotive piece of journalism but why not address some of the issues raised, such as the counsellor crying in court?

Was she the same one who would rush to hold him in the breaks? The same one who also cried? Funny how a journalist is criticised for using emotive language but a supposedly professional counsellor is given a pass for weeping over her client in a court of law.

BIB - happy to address that, but it's a separate point to the original one about the state using emotive vocabulary in its appeal document. If the facts speak for themselves, they speak for themselves - there shouldn't be any need for emotive rhetoric to persuade supreme court judges. (IMO)

 

[lithgow1]

I know you can't go a day without the wisdom of "your Kelly"

I just came across this interview transcript whilst looking for something more sensible.

You can see where some of this stuff comes from.
No, it's not worth more than a quick skim read.

https://supportforoscar.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/kelly-phelps-interview-transcript/

Thanks for that. Good ole Kelly. Did you happen to read any of the poems in that section? My favourite was Oscar, You are Loved. So inspiring. Interesting too that all the people leaving comments are women. Remember ladies, handsome is as handsome does!

 

[soozieqtips]

Umm...yes, actually.

Can you not see there is a difference between someone's sworn affidavit about an incident they were involved in, and a prosecution lawyer's official appeal document?!

Umm...

... you do realise it was OP's defence team who would have made sure his affidavit included specifically chosen emotive words for 'dramatic emphasis'? Even if those words were purely designed to garner sympathy and had nothing to do with how OP really felt that night? And you're not cynical about that?...

 

[soozieqtips]

BIB - happy to address that, but it's a separate point to the original one about the state using emotive vocabulary in its appeal document. If the facts speak for themselves, they speak for themselves - there shouldn't be any need for emotive rhetoric to persuade supreme court judges. (IMO)

If the facts speak for themselves... there shouldn't be any need for lies and multiple versions.

 

[aftermath]

If the facts speak for themselves... there shouldn't be any need for lies and multiple versions.

Nor any emotive rhetoric from the state to persuade supreme court judges.