Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

I think many of us felt that.

In my view this is what happens in every case!

 

[mrjitty]

Another one I've read.....this was not a case of domestic violence because there's no evidence that he'd ever hit her before.

Pardon?

So a woman being beaten by her husband for the first time is not a victim of domestic violence because it had never happened before?

In all cases, there is a first time - and that is as much a case of DV as it is the 100th time.

For lovely Reeva, it was the first and last time.

Mind you, the stupidest debate I've seen was the heated one about Mrs Stipp's blessed curtains.

Yes that one is very dumb.

Of course usually in DV cases it turns out there has been violence many times before - just in this case Reeva can't tell us about it.

I have the same suspicion in the Becky Watt's case.

We know about the abuse - but were there previous assaults?

A good chance IMO

 

[Tortoise]

LOL!

I have posted it before!

I posted it during the trial

Of course I find the timeline fascinating personally - but as I have often said before, there is a very good reason why Nel was not focussed on it!

A seasoned prosecutor zeroes in on the heart of the case. What happened in the moments before OP fired?

The crime scene photos (inter alia) prove that the accused version of those moments is not reasonable possibly true - therefore it must be dismissed.

Therefore there is no reliable evidence that a mistake was made.

Therefore the only reasonable inference left is murder

That alone, disposes of this case.

My reference to "the main line" - a term from Chess Opening Theory (bellowing nerd laughter) - explains why Nel conducted the case differently than what posters apparently expected.

Not saying he didn't make some mistakes - but he adopted the classic approach - for example he correctly urged the judge to focus on the broad brushstrokes of the witness testimony

The problem is not the timeline but the judges decision to speculate some way that Reeva got in the toilet despite the photos proving it didn't happen the way OP said.

I'm more convinced than ever that her starting point was the witness descriptions of his distress after the event. She must be very green is all I can say, or perhaps soft. Neither ingredient bodes well for anyone presiding over a murder trial.

As for Du Toit (Sp?), well, was there bias or an agenda at play I have to wonder. She was a fact settler if I'm not wrong, the other one had no questions. Lord, I had so many. When she asked if Reeva knew how to operate the alarm my heart sank a little. It meant that Reeva would have had to get out of bed, find the alarm remote (probably next to him on his keys), disable the alarm, move the cricket bat, silently unlock and open the door, get food ready without crashing a plate or a pan, eat, creep back up, silently close and re-lock the bedroom door, replace the cricket bat, set the alarm, put the remote back next to Oscar, and get back into bed, all like a church mouse, without disturbing the light sleeper, who himself said it was very unlikely.

 

[JudgeJudi]

On 20 November Karyn Maughan tweeted that the Appeal Court Registrar had informed her that the SCA's ruling was expected either this week or next week. If it's handed down within the current term which ends on Monday, 30 November, we only have ...

:bed: :bed: :bed: :bed:

to go. If this extends to the end of next week, we'll have to add a further 4. We shall wait and see.

Do you think OP is feeling a sense of anic: that he'll be returning to spend a few

more years :behindbar or raying: for a miracle?

 

[lithgow1]

On 20 November Karyn Maughan tweeted that the Appeal Court Registrar had informed her that the SCA's ruling was expected either this week or next week. If it's handed down within the current term which ends on Monday, 30 November, we only have ...

:bed: :bed: :bed: :bed:

to go. If this extends to the end of next week, we'll have to add a further 4. We shall wait and see.

Do you think OP is feeling a sense of anic: that he'll be returning to spend a few

more years :behindbar or raying: for a miracle?

If he is praying I hope he slips in a 'And please forgive me for all the lies I told even though I swore in your name I would be truthful. You understand I had to do it don't you. I didn't really mean it. We still friends?'.

 

[soozieqtips]

If he is praying I hope he slips in a 'And please forgive me for all the lies I told even though I swore in your name I would be truthful. You understand I had to do it don't you. I didn't really mean it. We still friends?'.

What are the odds of him being sentenced for longer but managing to wangle Christmas at home? Hopefully, not long now before we can accurately refer to him as a convicted murderer. What luck that Masipa was in charge! She seemed to ask fewer questions over the whole trial than the judges did at the appeal. I guess that's why Roux got rattled with Leach, because he wasn't used to having his word questioned.

 

[mrjitty]

Another interesting DS sideline IMO is the question of 'Did you understand Roux's explanation of Masipa's findings re DE and how they applied to Reeva?' (or words to that effect) being repeatedly posed when the questioner then admits that they really only got it after the appeal hearing. Seems strange to me to defend a judgement for over a year and then fess up to only having fully understood it a couple of weeks ago.

I agree it was an inventive effort by Roux but it fails for the same reasons as all the others as Grant pointed out:

There is something deeply disturbing about many of the attempts that have been made to justify Judge Masipa’s judgment in the Pistorius case. They seem to take the line that her conclusion of culpable homicide was conceivable on the law as it stands, and therefore, although her reasons were questionable, her conclusion was correct.

So in other words it is possible to make sense of some of it - but that doesn't tell us whether Masipa did apply the law correctly or actually misdirected herself.

On her own words there is a clear risk she misdirected herself. The SC has to operate from the face of the judgement.

In conclusion, we have seen several attempts to justify Masipa’s judgment, all of which seem to fail. It does not make Masipa’s judgment right to pretend that her reasons were reasons that would make her judgement right: that she decided that the accused had not accepted the risk of killing the deceased, that she recognised putative private defence, or that she found that the accused only intended to injure the intended target. These were not her reasons and, however valid they may be, it doesn’t help to pretend that they were her reasons. It also doesn’t help to attempt to justify the distortion of our law on dolus indeterminatus and dolus eventualis applied to error in objecto and the logical error made by Masipa. The law on dolus indeterminatus and error in objecto is clear. Nominal/name identity is irrelevant – for that very reason it cannot help the accused if he thought that it was B behind the door; nor can it help an accused who argues that he thought that it was not C. The identity of whoever was behind the door remains irrelevant – and the indictment did not need to remind the judge that it is not relevant. Finally, there is no reason to ignore this clear law (that nominal/name identity is irrelevant) just because the scenario triggers the rules relating to both error in objecto and putative private defence. There appears to be nothing to save us from the inevitable conclusion that Masipa made errors of law and errors of logic.

I suppose the bigger issue is whether applying the law correctly - you get to a different result.

I believe you do.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...t-hired-by-Oscar-wont-testify-report-20140417

Top pathologist hired by Oscar won't testify, report

Why did it never play a role?

 

[mrjitty]

What are the odds of him being sentenced for longer but managing to wangle Christmas at home? Hopefully, not long now before we can accurately refer to him as a convicted murderer. What luck that Masipa was in charge! She seemed to ask fewer questions over the whole trial than the judges did at the appeal. I guess that's why Roux got rattled with Leach, because he wasn't used to having his word questioned.

It was a pretty epic moment!

Leach basically said his whole case was rubbish!

I will never forget Leach reducing him to fawning wreck trying to find that quote

"just one moment justice leach!"

I am sure privately Roux has expended some pretty language on Masipa

She had one job!

 

[mrjitty]

I'm more convinced than ever that her starting point was the witness descriptions of his distress after the event. She must be very green is all I can say, or perhaps soft. Neither ingredient bodes well for anyone presiding over a murder trial.

I'd go further

I think that her concept of "accident" includes getting mad and smoking your girlfriend

But he didn't mean it.

She knows he gunned her down one way or the other, that he can't admit how it happened, and she thinks this is the appropriate sentence for a "peculiar" shooting

Look at the other case i posted today!

People are literally getting away with murder

What is going on in the High Court I have no idea.

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...t-hired-by-Oscar-wont-testify-report-20140417

Top pathologist hired by Oscar won't testify, report

Why did it never play a role?

It was said to be because his findings were the same as the state's and he would not alter his opinions. If that is so, and it is as it should be, he is to be congratulated.

Professor Jan Botha was used instead.

Here is a link that explains what happened although Perumal has never actually confirmed the reason for not appearing in the trial.

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-17-oscar-trial-defence-pathologist-wont-testify

 

[LemonMousse]

I'd go further

I think that her concept of "accident" includes getting mad and smoking your girlfriend

But he didn't mean it.

She knows he gunned her down one way or the other, that he can't admit how it happened, and she thinks this is the appropriate sentence for a "peculiar" shooting

Look at the other case i posted today!

People are literally getting away with murder

What is going on in the High Court I have no idea.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. And it all comes down, yet again, to what we mean by "intention".

I don't think he intended to kill Reeva, personally. At least, he never actually held that thought in his head long enough for the potential consequences to sink in.

I strongly, strongly suspect he got the gun to scare her. Cocked it to scare her. Pointed it at the toilet door to scare her. Then something tripped in his head, he lost control and fired. His "intention" in that regard was over almost as soon as it had begun.

I think you're right and Masipa saw this as synonymous with "accident". Which is quite shocking for a high court judge.

That he hadn't (probably) spent any time actually wanting Reeva dead beforehand does not mean there wasn't intention at the relevant moment. She seems to have confused premeditation with intent, and it's (as you know) not even faintly the same thing.

Did Pistorius know Reeva was behind the door?
Did he bring a priori knowledge that bullets can kill?
Was he of sound mind?
Was he physically in control of the gun?

If yes, it's murder. Without question.

 

[Trotterly]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. And it all comes down, yet again, to what we mean by "intention".

I don't think he intended to kill Reeva, personally. At least, he never actually held that thought in his head long enough for the potential consequences to sink in.

I strongly, strongly suspect he got the gun to scare her. Cocked it to scare her. Pointed it at the toilet door to scare her. Then something tripped in his head, he lost control and fired. His "intention" in that regard was over almost as soon as it had begun.

I think you're right and Masipa saw this as synonymous with "accident". Which is quite shocking for a high court judge.

That he hadn't (probably) spent any time actually wanting Reeva dead beforehand does not mean there wasn't intention at the relevant moment. She seems to have confused premeditation with intent, and it's (as you know) not even faintly the same thing.

Did Pistorius know Reeva was behind the door?
Did he bring a priori knowledge that bullets can kill?
Was he of sound mind?
Was he physically in control of the gun?

If yes, it's murder. Without question.

I'm not sure why any of this matters given that Nel is only seeking DE on the basis that anyone, least a trained shooter, would know that 4 shots into a small cubicle would kill regardless of what OP was thinking.

His actual motive is irrelevant
His actual intention is irrelevant
His actual mistake or not is irrelevant

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm not sure why any of this matters given that Nel is only seeking DE on the basis that anyone, least a trained shooter, would know that 4 shots into a small cubicle would kill regardless of what OP was thinking.

His actual motive is irrelevant
His actual intention is irrelevant
His actual mistake or not is irrelevant

BIB - Unless you're talking purely from a legal perspective, (are you?) then I don't see how you can say it's irrelevant if it's murder. And it's not irrelevant to consider how/why OP might have snapped. The possible scenarios put forward have been very interesting, to say the least.

 

[jilly]

Whatever he thought or didn't, to me, the murder may all come down to the shots. If it was one shot - it's an accident. One shot.....pause....3 more shots = murder, imo.

 

[LemonMousse]

I'm not sure why any of this matters given that Nel is only seeking DE on the basis that anyone, least a trained shooter, would know that 4 shots into a small cubicle would kill regardless of what OP was thinking.

His actual motive is irrelevant
His actual intention is irrelevant
His actual mistake or not is irrelevant

Not relevant to what?

Nel's case? Probably not.
This discussion? Definitely yes.

Just because no one's now pushing for DD does not mean that that is not what he is actually guilty of - as all the evidence indicates.

EDIT: Mind you, I cannot see why you've decided that his actual intention is "irrelevant" with regards to Nel's case. Dolus Eventualis is a specific type of intention - intention by default rather than direct. Did his actions constitute intention? Hardly "irrelevant".

 

[Trotterly]

Not relevant to what?

Nel's case? Probably not.
This discussion? Definitely yes.

Just because no one's now pushing for DD does not mean that that is not what he is actually guilty of - as all the evidence indicates.

EDIT: Mind you, I cannot see why you've decided that his actual intention is "irrelevant" with regards to Nel's case. Dolus Eventualis is a specific type of intention - intention by default rather than direct. Did his actions constitute intention? Hardly "irrelevant".

BIB This will the the lasting mantra regardless of what happens, despite that we now have the state admitting that it cannot be the case. A system put in place to specifically reach a fair decision decides and somehow individuals know better? Then why have a judicial system? Just go back to vigilantism?

I have not decided his actual intention is irrelevant, the state has based on the premise that he must have known he'd kill and therefore he did.

It won't fly.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB - Unless you're talking purely from a legal perspective, (are you?) then I don't see how you can say it's irrelevant if it's murder. And it's not irrelevant to consider how/why OP might have snapped. The possible scenarios put forward have been very interesting, to say the least.

Well it's an appeal now so it's all about the legal perspective I think.

Why he may or may not have snapped might be interesting but it's a bit off topic now.

 

[soozieqtips]

Well it's an appeal now so it's all about the legal perspective I think.

Why he may or may not have snapped might be interesting but it's a bit off topic now.

Every post in a thread of maybe a thousand comments can't always be about the same topic. I think you'll find possible scenarios discussed in over 60 threads so far, so obviously it's a subject most of us continue to be interested in.

 

[44ALLAN]

'although Perumal has never actually confirmed the reason for not appearing in the trial.'

This is another unusual part of the case that I can't get my head around unless they are all bound to silence, by Law, until the whole trial/appeal is finally over?

Perumal has said nothing and neither have any of the other witnesses that were called to trial.
No newspaper exclusives.
No appearances on Oprah ?

Are they still all in shock?

I personally would have wrote 3 books on the subject by now lol:shame: