Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

His `core` defence was that he shot at a perceived threat from a perceived intruder so of course there was an intent to shoot.

.....yes but that's after the perceived noise not before it........!

 

[aftermath]

What attack, let alone what lethal attack? Think your comment is missing a couple of `perceived's there.

Thought by now that would go without saying every time. Sorry.

 

[Colin de France]

Well, gee, I don't know then. Plenty of "possibilities"-- maybe he just wanted to see how four rounds would sound at 3:00 a.m. in that tiled bathroom.

........that's being sarcastic.....but in a way you're right anyway.........keeping the discussion open to other possibilities is healthy......

 

[cottonweaver]

This is of greater practical significance than Nel can explicitly spell out - but which he alluded to in X

Roux drafted his pleadings around self defence, anticipating of course that his witness will come up to brief (i.e. testify to self defence)

The fact that OP instead testified to an involuntary action is a disaster because he clearly never briefed that to Roux or they agreed he was not to say it.

I wonder if Masipa just didn't twig to that because she doesn't have the criminal practice experience.

In any event - she should not then go on to find he believed he fired lawfully - it wasn't his case!

BIB Yes some roller-coaster moments for Roux along the way. OP or his uncle ( ?) - a difficult client to manage with his ever-changing versions and double-taps.
Then the "Phew", sigh of relief from Roux that luckily, all was not lost, as he had "a right one 'ere" in Masipa.
Well, let's hope the carriage comes off the tracks in round 3!

 

[lithgow1]

Thought by now that would go without saying every time. Sorry.

No need at all to apologise but if you are going to choose and use emotive terms like `lethal attack` then I do think it needs a preceding `perceived' or inverted commas.

 

[mrjitty]

......even the very slightest minutest existence of proof would be something.......

How do you actually think the criminal justice system has worked all these years?

The police arrive to find the body, the gun and the shooter.

Its almost as if its too obvious

 

[lithgow1]

.....yes but that's after the perceived noise not before it........!

I don`t get your point here. Whatever caused him to shoot, he intended to do so unless you believe it was an `involuntary action`.

 

[Colin de France]

How do you actually think the criminal justice system has worked all these years?

The police arrive to find the body, the gun and the shooter.

Its almost as if its too obvious

....and you're an expert !.............................that's how innocent people go to prison.....

 

[Marfa Lights]

......even the very slightest minutest existence of proof would be something.......

From Pistorius judgment: Was there no intention to kill someone behind the toilet door?
Sep 11th, 2014 by Pierre De Vos.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/category/oscar-pistorius/

"As the Court explained in Humpreys:

ubjective foresight can be proved by inference. Moreover, common sense dictates that the process of inferential reasoning may start out from the premise that, in accordance with common human experience, the possibility of the consequences that ensued would have been obvious to any person of normal intelligence. The next logical step would then be to ask whether, in the light of all the facts and circumstances of this case, there is any reason to think that the appellant would not have shared this foresight, derived from common human experience, with other members of the general population.

In the Pistorius case the question is whether there was any reason to believe Pistorius did not share the foresight that his actions could lead to the killing of a human being. The judge found that there was. The question is whether the facts support such a finding."

 

[mrjitty]

BIB Yes some roller-coaster moments for Roux along the way. OP or his uncle ( ?) - a difficult client to manage with his ever-changing versions and double-taps.
Then the "Phew", sigh of relief from Roux that luckily, all was not lost, as he had "a right one 'ere" in Masipa.
Well, let's hope the carriage comes off the tracks in round 3!

My guess is that Roux had workshopped OP to try and be convincing about shooting at a threat - but OP just bottled it in X

 

[cottonweaver]

This is also important



So in other words, because the natural and logical consequence of shooting at someone is the possibility of them being killed - such intent is normally inferred merely because of taking the action

Surely only in remote corners of extremist forums could it be argued otherwise. However I am sure Webber's team is, as we speak, getting their ducks in a row to provide alternative case law to counter this...........as is their job of course.

As the State employed Grant to assist with his academic u'standing of jurisprudence, I wonder who the Defence are employing to assist?

 

[Colin de France]

I don`t get your point here. Whatever caused him to shoot, he intended to do so unless you believe it was an `involuntary action`.

.............in the intruder version picking up the gun doesn't proove he intended using it because it was before the idea that someone was coming out of the WC .......

 

[mrjitty]

Re intention - the Court has always been allowed to draw the natural and most logical inference from the facts.

So if I buy a plane ticket in my own name to Miami - it may be naturally inferred I intend to visit Miami

 

[lithgow1]

.............in the intruder version picking up the gun doesn't proove he intended using it because it was before the idea that someone was coming out of the WC .......

It strongly suggests he intended to use it otherwise why head towards a threat with it? To throw it at them? Besides, he did use it, four times, so I don`t know what proof you need to convince you that he intended to shoot at the 'intruder`.

BTW, do you believe he heard a noise that made him think someone was emerging from the toilet in the immediate moments before he fired?

 

[cottonweaver]

I posted this a couple of threads back to try and compare the level of experience of a High Court judge in UK compared to those in SA and was alarmed to see how "sketchy" the SA bios were.

Jitty - How does it compare in N.Zealand - or anyone else posting from their locations?

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/coa-biogs/

ETA - apols if disrupting your current train of argument - I'm still catching up on page 59's posts

 

[cottonweaver]

Appeal judges UK compared to SA

I wholly appreciate that it may be an unfair comparison for obvious reasons but this i what I mean, for those who don't want to open the link i posted etc.

UK Justice Hallet : "Dame Heather Carol Hallett was called to the Bar in 1972. In 1989 she became a QC and a Recorder of the Crown Court. She became a Bencher of Inner Temple in 1993. She served as Leader of the South Eastern Circuit between 1995 and 1997 and Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales in 1998.
She was appointed as a High Court Judge in 1999 and assigned to the Queen’s Bench Division. She became a Presiding Judge of the Western Circuit shortly thereafter. She was a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission from 2006 to 2010 (latterly its Vice Chairman).
She was the Chairman of the Judicial College from 2010 to 2014. In 2011 she was appointed Vice-President of the Queen’s Bench Division and served as Treasurer of Inner Temple. In 2013 she was appointed Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Lady Justice Hallett acted as Coroner at the inquest into the deaths of the 52 victims of the July 7th London bombings.
She was appointed as a Lady Justice of Appeal in 2005."

compared to another female member of the SCA, to be fairer to allow for poss. some positive discrimination:

"SCA :THERON, LEONA VALERIE. Education:
Matric: Sparks Estate Senior Secondary School, Sydenham
BA (1987) University of Natal
LLB (1989) University of Natal
LLM (1990) Washington DC, USA

Professional History:
Adjunct Lecturer Mangosuthu Technikon, Umlazi: February to June 1989
Advocate of the High Court, Kwa-Zulu Natal: December 1990
Part time Lecturer, University of Natal: July 1994 to November 1994
Acting Judge, Eastern Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal, 1998 – 1999
Judge of the High Court of South Africa: November 1999
Acting Judge, Supreme Court of Appeal: May 2006 to June 2007 and December 2009 to March 2010
Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Appeal: 1 December 2010"

I am not denigrating Theron's achievement above and I appreciate the SA nation's context is special but nevertheless to my wholly inexpert eye the comparisons are stark . Maybe someone with more knowledge can allay my concerns.

Obviously none of the sketchy details say "Political appointee of Zuma" etc ! Just as the uK ones don't either.

 

[cottonweaver]

How do you actually think the criminal justice system has worked all these years?

The police arrive to find the body, the gun and the shooter.

Its almost as if its too obvious

Absolutely... just as Masipa preferred to conjure up her own fiction people seem to want to make this story even more far fetched. No sarcasm here when I say that posters need to consider a career in outlandish crime fiction otherwise talents go to waste. PS I 'm not implying anything- I'm serious.

 

[cottonweaver]

My guess is that Roux had workshopped OP to try and be convincing about shooting at a threat - but OP just bottled it in X

BIB Of course but rather than bottling it, my view is that this comes from arrogance/too high an opinion of one's own abilities - thinking you know better than your barrister!

 

[Colin de France]

Absolutely... just as Masipa preferred to conjure up her own fiction people seem to want to make this story even more far fetched. No sarcasm here when I say that posters need to consider a career in outlandish crime fiction otherwise talents go to waste. PS I 'm not implying anything- I'm serious.

.....and i'm being serious when i say there's no proof.......i think it's pretty obvious.........there's no point in refusing to see the truth, that is, there is just nothing to prove that he murdered her........if there was anything then i would be one of the first to concede but being pumped from the state that inference is proof is beyond me.........proof is proof and inference is inference for the moment there's nothing but inference and no proof whatsoever of intention to do whatsoever...............and that is a fact .......lastly before closing all the doors to any other possible eventuality we must realise that we only have two versions, one made by Pistorius and it's counter theory from the state and if you're referring to me in your post i personally refuse to be drawn into a debate where the sides are decided from the outset i prefer to keep an open mind and develop other possible ideas regardless of whether or not the mainstream agree........................nothing outlandish in that....!

 

[cottonweaver]

Mandy Wiener @Mandy Wiener 2 h
Is there a way back for the Blade Runner? My column - with thanks to @Scienceofsport http://bit.ly/1Kv14A5

RSBM

You gotta laugh at Mandy Weiner trying to conjure up a whole piece about the chances of OP returning to top flight athletics in 4 years time. I appreciate a journalist has to pay the bills and at least she didn't get suckered into the "Justice Minister to review Pistorius Friday release" nonsense yesterday:

"But what would it take for the Blade Runner to come back? ( she means in athletics)

Others have done it before, haven’t they? Boxers Mike Tyson, Floyd Mayweather and Prince Naseem have all returned to the ring after serving jail terms. Granted they didn’t actually kill anyone but Tyson was convicted of rape and Mayweather of domestic abuse. Cyclist Lance Armstrong came back from retirement to race again although we do all know how that finally ended."

I'm sure it's in his mindset to give it a go but I think there are a whole raft of practical obstacles in his way.